Search: 1800-1809::1807 in date 
Macleay, Alexander in addressee 
Sorted by:

Showing 16 of 6 items

From:
Sir James Edward Smith
To:
Alexander Macleay
Date:
11 Jan 1807
Source of text:
GB-110/JES/AM/40, The Linnean Society of London
Summary:

Pleased that [William] Roscoe's paper has been accepted for current volume of "Linnean Transactions" and answers Macleay's queries regarding the paper: could find no drawing of 'Phrynium', "petalatoides" should be "petaloides", approves of Macleay's mode of arranging specific names, and suggests name 'Globba' instead of 'Colebrookea', with explanatory text.

Contributor:
The Linnean Society of London
From:
Sir James Edward Smith
To:
Alexander Macleay
Date:
19 Apr 1807
Source of text:
GB-110/JES/AM/41, The Linnean Society of London
Summary:

Unable to leave for London today on account of severe weather and illness. Received "Linnean Transactions" vol 8: the shell paper "very valuable" but wonders "how some of [Richard] Salisbury's trash got admittance" instead of his own papers, especially that on 'Conchium'; criticises Salisbury's paper on a salt storm. Macleay right to leave Salisbury's "lying pamphlet" out of the list of presentations to the Society; agrees with [Samuel] Goodenough that it ought to be expelled but will leave it to the Society to decide. Upset at the Society's response to the matter, but does not intend to defend himself in "Transactions" as he will not put himself "on a footing with a man whom [he now has] materials to drive out not only of our Society but of all society".

Contributor:
The Linnean Society of London
From:
Sir James Edward Smith
To:
Alexander Macleay
Date:
19 Jul 1807
Source of text:
GB-110/JES/AM/42, The Linnean Society of London
Summary:

Returns [Thomas] Hardwicke's paper and his own on 'Conchium' for "Linnean Transactions"; defends his choice of name and his belief in right to give names, as discussed in his forthcoming "Introduction to Botany". Thanks for forwarding box and letter from Ventenat from France, which contained sequel of Ventenat's "Jardin de la Malmaison" and Redoute's "Liliaces", Ventenat has requested plants. Surprised to receive anything from France considering the "awful condition we are in", but he does not despair. Enquires after box of living plants including 'Ophrys corallorhiza' sent by Edward Maughan from Edinburgh.

[Letter incomplete: second folio cropped, presumed destroyed]

Contributor:
The Linnean Society of London
From:
Sir James Edward Smith
To:
Alexander Macleay
Date:
19 Sep 1807
Source of text:
GB-110/JES/AM/43, The Linnean Society of London
Summary:

Returns enclosed corrections; does not think the anatomical descriptions of animals ought to be "mutilated" in "Linnean Transactions"; "readers of zoology know what to expect". Objects to [Richard] Salisbury's paper "for bringing in forced illustrations that are needlessly indelicate, especially as all his writings shew that he does it with a malicious design to discredit the Sexual System of Linnaeus, as he always affects to call it". Asks Macleay to provide names for the species in the paper, as the Linnean Society should be committed to not omitting these, which "distinguish the works of true scientific naturalists". Gratified by Macleay's opinion of "Exotic botany".

Contributor:
The Linnean Society of London
From:
Sir James Edward Smith
To:
Alexander Macleay
Date:
14 Dec 1807
Source of text:
GB-110/JES/AM/44, The Linnean Society of London
Summary:

Pleased his paper on the "Vitellus of seeds" is to be printed [in "Linnean Transactions"], afraid Council may find it too controversial. His paper on ferns intended only to be read, as he intends a more complete one for the Linnean Society.

Contributor:
The Linnean Society of London
From:
Sir James Edward Smith
To:
Alexander Macleay
Date:
22 Dec 1807
Source of text:
GB-110/JES/AM/45, The Linnean Society of London
Summary:

Sending a turkey. Received request from [William George] Maton for papers for the Linnean Society, happy to comply. Maton has asked whether the reference to Eden in his preface [to his "Introduction to Botany"] alludes to [Richard] Salisbury and "Paradisus Londinensis", to which he answered the passage was first written for his introductory lecture of April 1805, before their dispute, but would write the same now, as he "neither go a step one way or the other to avoid or to meet him".

Contributor:
The Linnean Society of London