CLXXXVI 
upon the labour of more than twenty years 
by the issue of the Species Plantarum ; then, 
for the first time, it is possible to look upon 
the whole edifiee, complete so far as the then 
state of botany extended. Still further, Linnaeus, 
as the inventor of the received nomenclature, 
had a perfectly free hand, and it is monst- 
rous to think of imposing upon him those 
restrictions which have become necessary since 
bis time. Many genera, sueh as Z4ethusa and 
Centaurea, took their modern form, or were 
first introduced, in the Species Plantarum, 
and it would be the merest pedantry to urge 
that they should be written .Ethusa and Cen- 
tauria, because that was their first guise; and 
they have never, so far als I know, ever had 
any speeifie names attached to them.  Unfor- 
tunately, with some folk, that seems to be all 
the better reason for striking out a new path; 
we shall see plenty of examples of this later on. 
Some of the changes which were introduced 
by Linnaeus, frequently in despite of his own 
canons, cannot be defended; thus, Bergius 
published his Littorella juncea in the Stock- 
holm .Handlingar in 1768, and when Linnaeus 
took up that genus and species in his Man- 
tissu he called it LL. lacustris; it is therefore 
not surprising that so many botanists have 
proposing to start therewith. That is 
acrown upon an edifice without edifice; 
but we want the edifice of his labours 
and must use therefore all his former 
works and papers — 17 quoted by 
himself after the preface of his Spe- 
cies Plantarum 1753 wherein he 
established and described his genera. 
Moreover, Mr. Jackson is quite 
wrong if he thinks that 4/8 of all 
my proposed names would fall by 
changing the starting point of nomen- 
clature. In beginning with 1737 there 
is a gain of 2827 species names and 
24 genera get new names; but 
starting with 1753 there must be given 
new names to 93 genera and 6876 
specles; therefore Kew botanists pro- 
posed  ineptly with 1753 a new 
starting-point which causes confusion 
and disadvantage. It does not seem 
that Mr. Juekson was well informed 
on the matter. See also my note Nr. 5. 
Linnaeus gave in 1735 a more ex- 
tensive explanation of hisSystem than in 
1737; Mr.Jacksonisalsoherequite wrong 
with his ,folly* as he calls it above. 
| 
| ing-point, 
to respect priority ; and in that is to be found 
the greatest number of f**most ancient names 
adopted by him." I repeat it; Il can see no 
lawful escape from the Systema as the start- 
if this rule of the Code be held 
as binding. 
As a writer, Mr. Jackson is both clear 
and energetie; and, having denied to Dr. 
Kuntze the protection of any "International 
Law," and having placed him an arbitrary 
selecter of unfamiliar generie names, he would 
vanquish him with ease, if vigorous phrase 
could vanquish an opponent. The folly, to 
use no harsher term, of raking up names gi- 
ven by Moehring, or by Siegesbeck, in 1736, 
before Linnaeus had had an opportunity to 
fully explain his system, or even to supply 
the requisite details, needs no enforcing; the 
case of Siegesbeck is particularly gross, he 
being Linnaeus! most virulent oppoenent." The 
last clause reveals, what we fear has become 
habitual in the botanieal mind in certain 
quarters, the working of a prineiple which it 
was to be hoped had been abandoned in England, 
after all the mischief it has wrought there; 
I mean that of suppressing one man's new ge- 
nera, and giving them to another under other 
names, for the reason that he who had priority 
on his side, had the misfortune to be at va- 
rianee with him who was assumed to be the 
man of greater consequence. But it is plain 
that the critic looks upon the case of Moeh- 
ring and Siegesbeck versus Linnaeus as alto- 
gether exceptional; and where, if the same 
things had transpired before our eyes in mo- 
dern times, all the blame would have been 
charged to Linnaeus, Mr. Jackson finds no 
fault at all but on the other side; and their 
fault is that of not having regarded the youth- 
ful Linnaeus of 1736 as a great oracle, in 
whose presence all other botanists must, for 
a time, remain speechless that he may per- 
fect his great plans of reform! Surely Mr. 
Jaekson's language amounts to the plaeimg of 
Linnaeus in a very pereuliarly saered posi- 
tion among botanists between the years 1735 
and 1753. He makes it irregular, or at least 
futile, for any one to have proposed a new 
genus of plants, or to have done anything 
else except in the spirit of deference to Lin- 
naeus, or as tributary to his fame. 
But the situation was not, we think, really 
so weak as to have ealled for so great saeri- 
fice on. the part of Linnaeus eontemporaries, 
in order to the Linnaean sueeess, Systema 
Naturae is one of the most pretentious titles 
that a book of science ever bore, Nor would 
Linnaeus have been likely himself to have 
acceded to such a proposition as that "the 
first edition of the Systema was an outline 
sketeh only." But had it really been such, 
how absurd would it not have been for Lin- 
naeus to have bidden botanists discontinue all 
researeh from the date of its appearing, lay 
