Sect. II.] Botanxf. 1 7J 



cal works of this philosopher rank in the very first 

 class. He was a warm opponent of Linnaeus, and 

 sometimes, in this scientific warfare, departt^l from 

 that mildness and urbanity wliicli he owed both 

 to himself and his adversary*. After Mailer, Ber- 

 nard de Jussieu, of France, published a new me- 

 thod of classification, also a natural one. To hini 

 succeeded his countryman la Marck, the author 

 of the botanical part of the Encyclopedic Mttho- 

 diquCy who formed a \\e\w system. But although 

 the works of the two last-named writers arc in- 

 structive and valuable, they are comparatively lit- 

 tle known or followed out of their own country. 

 In 17«51 the celebrated nosologist, Francis Boissier 

 Sauvages, of Montpellier, published his Mcthodus 

 Foliorum, seu Plant cc Florae Monspcliensis juxla 

 Foiiorum Ordincjn. In this work the author has 

 attempted an arrangement of plants from the 

 situation or position of the leaves. It is believed 

 that no succeeding botanist has adopted this me- 

 thod. In 1764 professor Gleditsch, of Berlin, pub- 

 lished a system, in some respects new, but differ- 

 ing so little from that of Linnaeus, especially witli 

 respect to his ordinal distinctions, that it act^uiivd 

 but little celebrity. 



The light thwwn on Vegetable Physiology forms, 

 one of the most brilliant honours of the period 

 under review. Little had been done in tliis 

 branch of botanical science before the commence- 

 ment of the eighteenth century. Grew and Mal- 

 pighi, indeed, of the preceding age, had instituted 



■^- Tracts QU Natural Jlistorj/, by Jame_-< KdwarJ Smith. 



