Talk:Johann Friedrich Gmelin

Gmelin's Chemical Genealogy

There appears to be a claim out there in the Chemical Genealogy Database that Johann's father Philipp was his thesis advisor, see Gmelin's chemical genealogy. The problem with that is that they don't provide a source for that claim, and I haven't been able to find an independent source either. Furthermore, they seem to be unaware of Gmelin's thesis, which clearly states that Oetinger was his advisor. Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that Johann Gmelin first studied under his father Philipp, and later switched to Oetinger for an advanced degree, but I haven't been able to find any information on that.
The problem I have with this is that there are a lot of copycat sites out there: once a claim like that is out there it is copied over and over again, and nobody ever takes the trouble to veryfy that information. In this case it looks like that the Chemical Genealogy Database is the origin of this particular claim, but to me it doesn't look very trustworthy. JdH (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the Chemie in Unser Zeit text: After he atteneded the lectures of his father he went to Tübingen in autumn 1804 to lern the pharmaceutical busines with his relatives. After imatriculation in Tübingen he attenden the lectures of Kielmeyer and F. Gmelin. He studied further medicine in Göttingen and attenden the lectures of the successor of his father Friedrich Stromeyer. He had is final exame in 1809 but for a ph.d he needed a written dissertation. He and his family left Göttingen for unkown reasons in 1809 before he could finish his exame. He joined the University of Tübingen a second time and started his dissertation. He had to leave Tübinmgen because of a duell. He went to vienna, because he was not allowed to return to würtenberg. He finished his dissertation in vienna with Joseph Franz von Jaquine and received his ph.d from Göttingen via mail dating 28.3.1812. This news he received at Rom. he published his thesis Leopold Gmelin: Chemische Untersuchung des schwarzen Pigmentes der Ochsen und Kalberaugen, nebst einigen physiologischen Bemerkungen uber dasselbe. Journal fur Chemie und Physik 10, 507 (1814).<--Stone (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from the Chemical Genealogy Database

The only evidence in support of assigning Oetinger as Gmelin's doktorvater is the thesis. This evidence is highly suspect, for the following reasons:

1) There is no biographical evidence of an intellectual connection of JF Gmelin with Oetinger; none of them even mentions Oetinger. 2) The only botanical work Oetinger was ever associated with in his entire life was Gmelin's thesis; all of his other work is in the area of medicine. If Oetinger was Gmelin's true advisor, why did he pick a topic so different from his other writings? 3) The fact that Gmelin was listed as an author on the thesis is outside the normal practice of the time, when the praeses wrote and published the thesis under his own name, and the student defended it. The fact that Gmelin is listed as an author is an indication that he wrote the thesis on his own because PF Gmelin had died and was unable to write the thesis. Oetinger then served as the praeses of record, as one was required.

On the other side, there is ample evidence that PF Gmelin served as JF Gmelin's mentor during this time:

1) Several biographical references (cited in our database) clearly specify PF Gmelin as JF Gmelin's teacher. 2) There is a clear intellectual connection of Gmelin with his father. For example, the thesis topic was botanical and PF Gmelin was professor of medicine, botany, and chemistry at Tubingen.

It is likely that Oetinger was recruited to serve the official function of praeses (presider) only because PF Gmelin had died a few months before. This still happens today when a death occurs, and when it does there is often no significant advisor/mentor relationship between the student and the person who signs as thesis advisor. Thus, there is good reason to believe that the praeses role was a purely administrative one, rather than a pedagogic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.227.189 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gmelin's dissertation "Irritabilitatem vegetabilium in singulis plantarum partibus exploratatam" is available online at the website of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

On the title page Gmelin thanks his chairman Oetinger with these words: Patrono et praeceptore in aeternum pie devenerando, pro summis in medicina obtinendis honoribus (Protector and teacher for ever being revered, for obtaining the highest honors in medicine) - excuse my poor understanding of Latin

This leaves no doubt whatsoever about Oetinger's role as teacher of Gmelin.

Let me add this: In the 18th century the relationship between teacher and student was very different from what it is now. The present situation, where a student spends several years doing research in his advisor's lab is a relatively recent development: this developed over the course of the 19th century, starting at the University of Berlin, and from there it spread over Germany and the rest of Europe. So the notion that somebody studied "under such a such a professor" is really an anachronism that didn't exist in the 18th century. What really happened is that a student took courses from several professors (or not: often he took courses at other universities, and sometimes he studied on his own without attending any classes as all). When the student was ready for it he would submit a dissertation, sometimes written in response to theses (= propositions) written by a professor (or other student), sometimes on his own; there was no uniformity in this. The dissertation did not have to contain any original research; that is a recent development as well. Sometimes the dissertation was even written even by someone else. By today's standard a 18th century dissertation was pretty much worthless. Gmelin's dissertation was a mere 30 pages, and he may have put it together in no more than a few weeks. Having submitted this dissertation there would be an exam that could take several days, and finally the thesis defense. The thesis defense itself was all important: the objective of a 18th century education was that the scholar would be able to discuss and defend his subject. That's why Grammar, Rhetoric, and Dialectic, was at the core of the classical Western education.

So there could be many teachers: all the professors with whom the student took courses can be considered teacher. There is one teacher who stands out: The chairman of the all important thesis defense. In Gmelin's case that was Oetinger. JdH (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Birds?

Why no mention of his bird work? See: Peter Gustaf Tengmalm, Great Horned Owl, Lottia etc

or snakes?

Actually article as a whole does a poor job showing the guy in perspective. (Giving us a feel for how substantial his contributions were amongst fields).

On a practical note, did he draw pictures of animals he identified? Or plants? Would be good illos here and off copyright.TCO (reviews needed) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a student or apostle of Linnaeusw

1) This is not the Gmelin who traveled to Persia, See Samuel G. 2) This Gmelin hadn't yet been born when Linnaeus was in the Netherlands. 3. J.F. Gmelin, the famous traveler to Siberia, sent Linnaeus some specimens 4) Footnoe 4, cites Blunt as a source; Blunt does not even mention any of the Gmelins in the cited work. 5) The other book cited I do not own--but doubt that he lapses on this point. 80.216.152.150 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this question. I'm working on disentangling the problem. A propos, Blunt does mention the Gmelin family in "The compleat naturalist": the citation is on page 190, a citation of a letter from Linnaeus to his friend John Ellis, dated 1771. We may have differing opinions on who he means by "the younger Gmelin"!

It is probably wrong to call any Gmelin an "apostle" of Linnaeus. His apostles were students who went botanising with him in Sweden.

J.F.Gmelin clearly had enormous respect for Linnaeus, putting in an astronomical effort into that 13th edition of Systema Naturae.

One gets a strong impression from Blunt of this great mutual respect betwween Linnaeus and JF Gmelin

Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)