AN OVERDOSE OF PROSPERITY 11 



than a thousand generical names have been changed and 

 introduced. What cause have I to change them ? None 

 but because they are not founded on proper grounds 

 and definite laws. . . . Our successors in the republic 

 of botany will ultimately cease to give implicit credit to 

 the authority of the ancients. Why should we retain 

 the ell-long names of Monolasiocallenomenopliylloriim, 

 ][i/j>u2>lii/llocarpode7idrum, &c., and other barbarian 

 jargon ? ' < Some things may be made darker by defini- 

 tion. I see a cow. I define her Animal gwidrupes 

 ruminans cornutum. But a goat ruminates, and a cow 

 may have no horns. Cow is plainer.' l ' Linnasus has 

 been reproached with having rendered too easy the 

 nomenclature of botany, and occasioned thereby the 

 appearance of a vast number of small works. This 

 objection seems only to prove what progress botany has 

 made under him.' 2 Formerly the names of plants 

 sounded like a magical incantation; Linnaeus con- 

 densed all this clearly into a trivial name. As, for 

 instance Stoever gives it the species of grass which 

 used to be called Gramen Xerampelinum Miliacea prcete- 

 nuis ramosaque sparsa panicula ; sive Xerampelino congener 

 arvense cestivum gramen minutissimo semine. Linnaeus 

 called it simply Poa bulbosa. 



Dillenius wrote angrily to Linnseus, ' By this means ' 



[the newly constructed names] ' you daily increase the 



confusion which has proved so detrimental to botany, 



and which renders a " Pinax" so necessary.' I have some 



1 Dr. Johnson. 2 Condorcet. 



