Probably curiosities, b/c aristocrats vied with each other to create exotic gardens with new species, which in turn created a boom for seed and specimen collectors and sellers, and stimulated the study of natural history in the age of voyages of exploration (1492 ff). This is particularly pronounced in late 17th and the 18th century North America.

Well, I think there is a problem with definition, because what Donald Beaver says sounds to me as though the curiosity of European aristocrats was such a powerful economic motive as to really make the satisfaction of that curiosity a commodity in itself. The explorers who brought remarkable new animals or plants to Europe knew that they had a market for it. So really, there is no contradiction.

Yes, that is my point exactly. I think that curiosities (when tangible itens - remains, drawings, stories) could then became valuable commodities. And could this create a market to create more curiosities (not known before or maybe "invented")?

It seems to me simple, to the naturalists of the time were more interesting curiosities, but who paid for the trips were the commodities!

For the naturalists the mobile might have been curiosity and for those paying for the natural expeditions, commodities would probably be the main purpose. However, either curiosity or commodity, the result was, in both cases, a incentive to knowledge and a important step towards the development of the natural sciences.

Dear Ana Roque.

.

I'm not making a value judgment, I'm just reporting reality.

.

Now, one thing is certain. Naturalists have gained scientific knowledge and funders with the profits!

I don't think you can draw a line between the two. For early modern naturalists, every curiosity was potentially a commodity and vice versa. Also, curiosities could appeal to a different group of collectors from commodities. Wealthy scholars and collectors of curiosities had different interests from the merchants who sought commodities, but it should also be pointed out that the in early modern period, the most sought after commodities were ones already familiar to Europeans. They sought first and foremost in the New World, after precious metals, valuable commodities already obtained from Asia. The big draw was tropical climate zones where they could expect to find or be able to cultivate commodities such as spices, aloes and, especially sugar. So for every new commodity they discovered, such as tobacco, "old" commodities that could be found (cod fish from the Grand Banks, lumber for European ships from Canada and New England, beaver pelts from the same regions) or produced (sugar), allowed Europeans to obtain more cheaply goods that were more expensive when obtained from Asia or, as in the case of beaver pelts, from Russia. Curiosities were of interest as well, but that interest was fairly superficial except amongst naturalists and wealthy amateur collectors unless the curiosity could become a commodity.

I think Gayle is correct. From the beginning of European colonial expansion, the great empires -- and later the small ones -- organized imperial and botanical gardens in service to power and commodity production and exchange. This is part of a broader movement of making nature external (to humans), space flat, and time linear, across the early modern era.