BOTANICAL LITERATURE. 209 



And uo\y that people are retarning, many of tliem altogether 

 Unconsciously, but none tlie less surely, to the principles 

 whicli Tournefort adopted from Gesner and Column a, it Avill 

 be found worth every one's while to make a somewhat careful 

 study of this old work which too early passed from the 

 curriculum of advanced botanical study. It is one of the 

 great masterpieces of botanical learning and sagacity ; a 

 classic which, one may almost believe, will some day need to 

 be reprinted. I have touched upon one only, out of several 

 important topics which the serious mention of these volumes 

 will suggest, that of the foundation and definition of a genus. 

 The rest 1 leave ; but one further word to this point. 



While the genera of Tournefort are as unstilted and natural 

 as are the living denizens of meadow and wildwood them- 

 selves, and while there is no trace of pedantry in the writings 

 of the man, yet, to that forever repeated stiff form of words 



"■ est plaiitce genus flore ex cujus calyce surgit 



pistillum quod deinde abit in fructum ," etc., which he 



chose as a regular framework for the setting of the essential 

 characters of the genus, may perhaps be traced the origin of 

 our modern pedantry ; our favorite notion that a genus can 

 not, or shall not be recognized except under a Latin name 

 and a properly formulated " character ; " and the cognate 

 stilted notion that an education in modern botanical termin^ 

 ologv, and an acquaintance with Linmeus and Bentham & 

 Hooker are a sine qua non in the knowledge of the plant 

 world, and that these accomplishments furnish the only secure 

 title to the name of botanist in any country or in any age. 



