HISTORY OF BOTANY. 67 



now universally adopted, altliongh condemned by Linnaeus, 

 of converting the names by which plants are known in 

 countries called barbarous into scientific generic names, by 

 adding a Latin termination to them ; " and he comes to this 

 conclusion — "I agree with those who think a good well- 

 sounding unmeaning name as good as any that can be 

 contrived." 



I shall not be alone in dissenting from this opinion, but 

 its being held by such a high authority as Lindley will serve 

 as a reason why many scientific names are mere gibberish? 

 as far as lies in their possessing in themselves any compre- 

 hensible meaning. This does not apply so much to the 

 nomenclature of the British Flora as to the Botany of the 

 world. 



The great excellence of Linneus' plan will perhaps appear 

 more plainly by a comparison of his names with those of the 

 most eminent botanists of his time. If we take up the 

 ' Hortus Elthamensis,' of Dillenius, we find that the name 

 generally consisted of three words, and these were fre- 

 quently followed by about three more, of less importance, 

 but still part of the name, thus : — " Bidens latifolia hirsiitior 

 semine angustiore radiato." This is the " Bidens pilosa " of 

 Linneus ; " Bidens Succissefolio, radio amplo laciniato " of 

 Dillenius, is "Coreopsis lanceolata" of Linneus. Again, if 

 we refer to the sjmonyms in Willdenow's ' Species Plantarum ' 

 we find that Haller called " Helleborus foetidus," of Linneus, 

 "Helleborus ramosus multiflorus, foliis multipartitis, serratis, 

 stipulis ovato-lanceolatis, coloratis." 



This was the Idnd of nomenclature which Rivinus did 

 much to amend, but which Linneus put in its present form. 

 Names without any meaning cannot generally be held as 

 good as those which convey at least some smattering of 

 information to impress them on the memory, if for no other 

 reason. It might be said that the names of people applied 



f2- • 



