LINNEAN SOCIETY OF LONDON 2$ 



that the Linneau morphology was based upon that of Jung, which, 

 by the time Linnaeus wrote his ' Funclameuta Botauica' (1736), 

 had become common knowledge. That work shews a considerable 

 advance towards a more detailed and comprehensive terminology : 

 but the goal was not reached until the publication, in 1751, of the 

 ' Philosophia Botanica,' which gave to Botany an unrivalled 

 descriptive apparatus, and must always be regarded as one of the 

 greatest of the many great achievements of Linnaeus. 



As for the theoretical aspect of morphology, the dissertation 

 on ' Metamorphosis ' (Amoen. Acad, iv.) and the two on ' Pro- 

 lepsis ' (Amcen. Acad, vi.) are the recognized contributions 

 of Linnaeus to this subject. The term ' metamorphosis ' has 

 certainly a morphological sound, but it must be borne in mind 

 that it did not mean the same thing when used by Linnaeus 

 as it did when used by Goethe. In its modern sense it 

 refers to the adaptation of one and the same member to different 

 functions ; it is the expression of the physiological division of 

 labour. Leaves, for instance, may be foliage-leaves, or floral leaves, 

 or pitchered leaves, or tendrils : all essentially the same, yet all 

 functionally diverse. But with Linnaeus the word had a much 

 wider application. It referred, in the first place, to the flowering 

 of plants, a process that seemed to him to correspond to the 

 ' metamorphosis ' of a chrysalis into a butterfly ; and, secondly, 

 to the occurrence of varieties and monstrous forms. Nevertheless 

 he rightly includes, in the second category, such admitted cases of 

 metamorphosis as the doubling of flowers, and the occurrence of 

 two different forms of foliage-leaves on partly submerged plants. 



The idea of ' prolepsis ' was introduced as an explanation of the 

 phenomenon of flowering. It is briefly this — that each series of 

 organs in a flower, the bracts, the sepals, the petals, the stamens, 

 the carpels, represents the product of a year's development, so 

 that in the expanded flower there is, as it were, an anticipation of 

 five years' growth. The idea is fanciful and not well-founded: 

 yet the dissertations in which it was expounded contain many 

 interesting and acute observations which clearly sliow that Linnaeus 

 recognised the morphological identity of floral and other leaves. 

 But in all this thei'e is no definite advance : there is no more than 

 a restatement in novel form of accepted view s. A more effective 

 and more convincing method of attacking morphological problems 

 was at this very time being pursued by Caspar Friedrich AVolff, who 

 in advocating epigenesis as against the prevalent theory of 

 evolutionary development, was investigating the actual facts of 

 development in both animals and plants : and it is to him, more 

 than to Limueus, that the progress of morphology at this period 

 was due. 



There is yet one other controversial point to be raised, and that 

 is tlie suggestion that some germ of the theory of organic evolution 

 is to be found in the writings of Linnaeus. Such study as I have 

 been able to devote to these writings has failed to discover any- 

 thing of the kind. On the contrary, it has become more and more 

 clear to me that the idea of the constancy of species is a necessary 



