The volume and whereabouts of Humboldt and Bonpland’s botanical collections

Authors

  • Susanne S. Renner Washington University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18443/395

Keywords:

Botanical collections, number of different plants, numbers of species, digitized Paris plant specimens, unknown number of duplicates, Bonpland material lost in Argentina, discrepancies between Humboldt's own estimates

Abstract

Humboldt and Bonpland are often said to have collected 60,000 plant specimens representing 6,000 species. I review Humboldt’s estimates of the material collected in the Americas, discuss its whereabouts, and explain the difficulty in estimating specimen and species numbers due to problems with duplicate numbering. This led to at least 250 species being described twice. Based on field notes, they made 4,528 collections, aiming at three duplicates each. Of these, 3,525 survive in the Paris Bonpland herbarium, plus an unknown number in the general herbarium. Other herbaria are not yet fully digitized. Humboldt’s estimate (around 1800) of 4,200 species seems high, but the description of new species remains incomplete.

 

Author Biography

  • Susanne S. Renner, Washington University

    Honorary professor of biology at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri. She is a plant systematist and evolutionary biologist with expertise in the plants collected by Alexander von Humboldt and Aimé Bonpland between 1799 and 1804. Among her monographs and papers on the history of collecting are A history of botanical exploration in Amazonian Ecuador (1739-1988) (Smithsonian Contribution in Botany, 1993) and My reputation is at stake. Humboldt’s mountain plant geography in the making (1803-1825), with Ulrich Päßler and Pierre Moret (Journal of the History of Biology, 2023).

Downloads

Published

2026-06-19

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Renner, S. S. (2026). The volume and whereabouts of Humboldt and Bonpland’s botanical collections. HiN - Alexander Von Humboldt in the Net. International Review for Humboldt Studies, 27(51), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.18443/395