LTNTfEAN SOCIETY OP LONDOIS', 21 



cism, for the microscope aud the necessary weapons of research 

 were incomplete and comparatively nseless in his day. Any de- 

 ficiency of such knowledge is compensated by the reform in the 

 terminology, tlie establishment of a rational nomeucluture, aud 

 the careful work of the illustrious man, whose fame amongst 

 the general public rests alone upon the artificial system of classi- 

 fication he elaborated in the ' Systoma Naturae.' It is the custom 

 to pass this classificatory system by as antiquated ; but it must 

 be remembered that Linnaeus never considered it as a final work. 

 He speaks, in the ' Classes Plantarum ' (1747), of the difliculty 

 of discovering the natnral orders, and wrote : — " I, too, have 

 laboured at this, have done something, have mucli still to do, and 

 shall labour at the object as long as I live." In the ' Philosophia 

 Botauica ' he proposed sixty-seven orders as tbe fragments of a 

 natural method, always professing, however, their imperfection. 

 He stated elsewhere, " The natural orders teach us the nature of 

 plants ; the artificial orders enable us to recognize plants. The 

 natural orders without a Key do not constitute a method ; the 

 method ought to be avadable without a master." 



It must be remembered that at tlie time of Linnaeus systematic 

 botany was in its iufimcy. Csesalpinus bad taken the science out 

 of the mediaeval darkness and foreshadowed the post-Linnaean 

 age. He was indeed, to use the language of Linnfeus, " Primus 

 verus systematicus ; " aud his system was very natural. Ray, 

 and Jung of Lilbeck, and Tournefort had written in the same 

 direction ; but their methods were diOicult and could only bear 

 fruit in after years. What was required was an easy method of 

 distinguishing a species so that subsequent study could be directed 

 to known forms. 



When any one of the natural systems wdiich was published 

 after the age of Linnaeus is critically examined, much of it will 

 be found to be artificial ; but there is, or ought to be, a physio- 

 logical foundation whicli has barely a place, in the artificial 

 method. Pliysiological botany was in its infancy, and it was im- 

 possible to tabulate parts of the plant according to their biological 

 value. 



One thing is very certain, and it is, that if every decrier of the 

 Linnean system, as exemplified and elaborated in the ' Systema 

 Natura?,' told the truth, he would admit that he had often found 

 out the names of plants by its process, when some difliculty in 

 the natural system intervened. It will be noticed further on 

 that Lamarck utilized a combination of the artificial and natural 

 methods in the ' Flore Fran9aise.' 



It is remarkable how little credit is given, at the present time, 

 to Linnaeus as a zoologist. He has been overshadowed by Cuvier, 

 Agassiz, and others ; but it must be remembered that it was the 

 application of a correct and rigid terminology to a classification, 

 parts of which are in constant use at the present day, that enabled 

 the science to make its great strides after the time of the great 

 ISwede. It is interesting to note how, in the ' Systema Naturae,' 



