ii4 Development of the Natural System under [BOOKI. 



fragment, which is demanded in systematic botany, is the 

 natural method, which slighted by less learned botanists has 

 always been highly regarded by the more sagacious, and has 

 not yet been discovered. If, he continues, we collect the 

 natural orders from all existing systems (up to 1738), we shall 

 get but a small list of really allied plants, though so many 

 systems have claimed to be natural. He had himself long 

 laboured to discover the natural method and had found out 

 some things that were new ; but though he had not succeeded 

 in carrying it through to a perfect work, he would continue his 

 efforts as long as his life lasted. He makes the very important 

 remark, that a key, that is, a priori principles of classification, 

 cannot be given for the natural method, till all plants have been 

 reduced to orders ; that for this no a priori rule is of value, 

 neither this nor that part of the fructification, but the simple 

 symmetry alone (simplex symmetria) of all the parts, which is 

 often indicated by special marks. He suggests to those who 

 are bent on trying to find a key to the natural system, that 

 nothing has more general value than relative position, especi- 

 ally in the seed, and in the seed especially the 'punctum 

 vegetans,'--a distinct reference to Cesalpino. He says that he 

 establishes no classes himself, but only orders ; if these are 

 once obtained, it will be easy to discover the classes. The 

 essence of the natural system could not have been more clearly 

 expounded in Linnaeus' time, than it is in these sentences. He 

 established as early as 1738 sixty-five natural orders, which he 

 at first simply numbered ; but in the first edition of the 

 ' Philosophia Botanica' in -1751, where the list is increased to 

 sixty-seven, he gave a special name to each group ; and he 

 showed his judgment by either taking his names from really 

 characteristic marks, or what was still better, by selecting a 

 genus and so modifying its name as to make it serve as a 

 general term for a whole group. Many of these designations 

 are still in use, though the extent and content of the groups 

 have been greatly changed. This mode of naming is an import- 



