1859.] REVIEW. 85 



investigation^ judged more judiciously and prudently of this 

 matter than some writers in our own age^ who are his most in- 

 veterate detractors. These have disregarded his golden rule, viz. 

 " Character non dabit genus, sed genus character em J' Here the 

 Professor bravely accuses the French savants of injustice to the 

 memory and merits of his famous countryman. For example, 

 the illustrious Cuvier, in his Eloge in commemoration of Adanson 

 (Paris and Strasbourg, 1819, p. 286), hcec jactitavit : ^^11 y a des 

 fort raisons de croire que Linnaeus avait profite de conversations 

 de Bernh. de Jussieu sur ce sujet (^arrangement naturel de 

 plantes), car plusieurs des rapprochements indiques dans ses Or- 

 dines Naturales, publies en 1753 sous forme de simple liste non 

 motivee, auraient difificilement pu naitre des vues qui ont dirige 

 cet homme celebre dans ces autres ouvrages.^^ " In the grouping 

 of many genera,^^ our author admits, " there is truly much simi- 

 larity between Linnseus and the French authors above named, 

 and the inference of the latter is that Linnaeus obtained this 

 from his intercourse with the French botanists of Paris. But 

 the ' Fragmenta Methodi Naturalis ' was first published, not in 

 1753, as Cuvier states, but in 1738, at Leyden, and the preface 

 bears the date of the 20th March, before Linnaeus had visited 

 Paris.^^ See Dr. Maton^s edition of the ' Life and Writings of 

 Linnaeus,' p. 71, 4to, London, 1805.* 



Professor Agardh then states that neither Linnaeus nor Jussieu 

 can be considered as the founders of a natural system. He says : 

 "Linnaeus primus constituit Generis notionem in re herbaria, 



* It is surely lite quarrelling about goat's wool (lana de caprina) to dispute 

 about the merit due to the inventors of Natural Orders prior to the publication of 

 Jussieu's ' Genera Plantarum.' Linnseus, in his ' Fragmenta Methodi Natuxalis,' 

 gives indeed a list of sixty-eight sections, which some are pleased to call Orders, 

 though the author or adopter does not dignify them with this high appellation. 



But if Csesalpine, Lobel, Morison, Ray, Hermann, Eivinus, Tournefort, Dillenius, 

 HaUer, Gesner, etc., were each and all to claim their genuine or adopted offspring, 

 Linnseus's portion would not be large. 



The largest of the Orders, viz. Compositse, Gramiuece, Criiciferse, Caryophylleae, 

 Leguminifer£e, Unibellatae, Kosacese, Labiatse, Campanulacese, Amentacese, Palmae, 

 Liliacese, Euphorbiacese (Tricoccse), Musci, Algae, Fungi, etc., were all well known 

 before Linnteus pubhshed his celebrated Fragments of a Natural Metliod. 



The modern systematists have departed far from Lmnseus in their arrangements. 

 For example, their modern Order Primulacece contains genera which are placed by 

 Linnaeus in Calycardliemce, Glaux ; in Precice, Primula; and m. RotacecB, Lysima- 

 chia, AnagaUis, Trientalis, Centunculus, Hottonia ?, and Samolus ? 



