Chap, ii.] Organs from Cesalpino to Linnaeus. 99 



Linnaeus are interesting, because like other remarks of his they 

 show that he placed the establishment and arrangement of the 

 larger groups above the mere distinguishing of individual forms ; 

 his disciples to a great extent forgot their master's teaching, 

 and fancied that the collecting and distinguishing of species was 

 systematic botany. He opposes the system itself, which deals 

 with the relative conceptions of classes, orders, genera, species, 

 and varieties, to a mere synoptical view, serving with its 

 dichotomy only to practical ends. Then comes the often- 

 quoted sentence, 'We reckon so many species as there were 

 distinct forms created " in principio." ' In a former place he had 

 said ' ab initio ' instead of ' in principio ' ; instead therefore of 

 a beginning in time he here posits an ideal, theoretical begin- 

 ning, which is more in accordance with his philosophical views. 

 That new species can arise is, he continues, disproved by 

 continuous generation and propagation, and by daily observa- 

 tion, and by the cotyledons. It is hard to understand how the 

 Linnaean school till far into our own century could have 

 remained firm in a doctrine resting on such arguments as 

 these. Linnaeus' definition of varieties shows that he understood 

 by the word species fundamentally distinct forms; there are, 

 he says, as many varieties as there are different plants growing 

 from the seed of the same species ; and he adds that a variety 

 owes its origin to an accidental cause, such as climate, soil, 

 warmth, the wind ; but this is evidently mere arbitrary assump- 

 tion. Judging by all he says, his view is that species differ in 

 their inner nature, varieties only in outward form. Here, 

 where we find the dogma of the constancy of species for the 

 first time expressed in precise terms, — a dogma generally 

 accepted till the appearance of the theory of descent, we 

 should be justified in demanding proof; but since dogmas 

 as a rule do not admit of proof, Linnaeus simply states his 

 view 1 , unless we are to take the sentence, 'negat generatio 



1 It would not be difficult to prove that the doctrine of the constancy of 



H 2 



