— 234 — 



Thus, LiNNAEUS tliought that the tea flower had not only free stamens, 

 but also free petals, both properties contrasting with Camellia; and this 

 conception is to be found back in the subséquent éditions of tlie „Genera 

 plantarum," and equally in the other works of Linnaeus — with only one 

 interesting exception, which is very rarely recorded in iiterature. This exception 

 is his posthumous paper, edited by Giseke, „Praelectiones in ordinesnaturales 

 plantarum"'). It is well-known that Linnaeus himselffelt the defectiveness of 

 liis artificial System, wich distorted and brvjke the ,,natural affinities'", a matter 

 of intuitive feeling rather than of log'ical définition; therefore he intended to 

 Write a comprehensive work on the natural System, which should not take 

 the place of, but complément his artificial System 2). In thèse ,,Praelec- 

 tiones'', which hâve to be considered as a third effort in this direction 3)^ 

 under the 37*'^ order (Coliimniferae), the gênera Tliea and Camellia hâve 

 been united, they ,,only differ by their calyx" ^), which, indeed, consists of 

 imbricated, deciduous scales with Camellia; itis remarkable that no mention 

 is made of the stamens! We may perhaps infer from this fact that Linnaeus 

 himself had recognized their being united instead of free. 



Probably quite independently, tiie renowned French botanist Antoine 

 Laurent de Jussieu, building on the natural System of his uncle Bernard 

 de JussiEU, reached the same conclusion. In his fundamental work ,, Gênera 

 plantarum" (1789), under the order of the Aiirantiae (13^^ class, 10*^ order), 

 he composed a section 111, consisting of the gênera Ternstroemia, Taonabo, 

 Tliea and Camellia^), which ail of them should subsequently belong to 

 the Ternstroemiaceae. It is true that they are out of place, being put near 

 Citrus, Murraya, etc., but De Jussieu did this only for want of a better 

 place. The main point is, that he held Thea and Camellia to be closely 

 related, and that he said about the stamens of Tliea that they could be 

 united (,,Stamina distincta aut polyadelpha"). 



This View was more and more generally adopted in the beginning 

 of the 19'" century. SiMS (1807) already mentions a contemporary, Mr. Ker, 

 who thinks that the gênera Thea and Camellia ought to be united and that 



') C. a LINNE 1792, p. 460. 



2) Compare J. Sachs 1875, p. 99. 



^) His famous System of 1737 was tiie first; but already in 1738 he made his second 

 attempt in his ,, Fragmenta methodi naturalis" (1738 p. 485), wherein he united the 

 gênera to orders. Camellia, with (what we now would call) the Malvaceae belongs 

 to the 34'h order. But in the 26"' order (Sfercitliaceae, Guttifcrae ; \aieT ihe Monogynia 

 Polyandria of the Species plantarum) we seek Thea in vain; it would seem as if 

 Linnaeus even then did not know where to put it! 



'^ 'Camellm I differunt tantum Calyce." 



I venture to suppose that Linnaeus' attention was drawn to the strong affinity 

 between Camellia and Thea by the fact that he repeatediy attempted to get a living 

 tea plant to be brought to Europe, but received a Camellia japonica instead every 

 time. This was by his contemporaries ascribed to the mysteriousness or to the 

 „perfidia" (Linnaeus-WildenOW 1799, p. 1180) of the Chinese; but 1 think it was 

 rather a mistake, as both plants are called „Ch'a" in Chinese. (See E. Bretschnei- 

 DER 1870, p. 23.) 



5) A. L. De Jussieu 1789, p. 262. ' . 



