384: HISTORY OF BOTANY. 



influence, was undoubtedly our countryman, John Ray, who was 

 Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, at the same time with Isaac 

 Newton. But though Cuvier states Si that Ray was the model of the 

 systematists during the whole of the eighteenth century, the Germans 

 claim a part of his merit for one of their countrymen, Joachim Jung, 

 of Lubeck, professor at Hamburg. 3 ' Concerning the principles of 

 this botanist, little was known during his life. But a manuscript of 

 his book was communicated 40 to Ray in 1660, and from this time for- 

 wards, says Sprengel, there might be noticed in the writings of Eng- 

 lishmen, those better and clearer views to which Jung's principles 

 gave birth. Five years after the death of Jung, his Doxoscopia 

 Physica was published, in 1662; and in 1678, his Isagoge Pfyytosco 

 pica. But neither of these works was ever much read ; and even 

 Linnaeus, whom few things escaped which concerned botany, had, in 

 1771, seen none of Jung's works. 



I here pass over Jung's improvements of botanical language, and 

 speak only of those which he is asserted to have suggested in the 

 arrangement of plants. He examines, says Sprengel, 41 the value of 

 characters of species, which, he holds, must not be taken from the 

 thorns, nor from color, taste, smell, medicinal effects, time and place 

 of blossoming. He shows, in numerous examples, what plants must 

 be separated, though called by a common name, and what must be 

 united, though their names are several. 



I do not see in this much that interferes with the originality of 

 Ray's method, 411 of which, in consequence of the importance ascribed 

 to it by Cuvier, as we have already seen, I shall give an account, fol- 

 lowing that great naturalist. 43 I confine myself to the ordinary 

 plants, and omit the more obscure vegetables, as mushrooms, mosses; 

 ferns, and the like. 



Such plants are composite or simple. The composite flowers are 

 those which contain many florets in the same calyx** These are sub- 

 divided according as they are composed altogether of complete florets, 



K Lefons Hist. Sc. p. 487. 39 Sprengel, ii. 27. 



40 Ray acknowledges this in his Index Plant. Agri Cantab, p. 87, and quote* 

 from it the definition of caulis. 



41 Sprengel, ii. 29. 



43 Methodus Plantarum Nova, 1682. Historia Plantarum, 1686. 

 " CUT. Lecons Hist. Sc. Nat. 488. 



44 Involucrum, in modern terminology. 



