REFORM OF LINNyEUS. 



345 



cient to distinguish it from others of the same genus. 

 But in this way the designation of a plant often be- 

 came a long and inconvenient assemblage of words. 

 Thus different kinds of Rose were described as, 



Rosa campestris, spinis carens, biflora (Rosa alpina.) 



Rosa aculeata, foliis odoratis subtus rubiginosis (R. eglan- 

 teria.) 



Rosa Carolina fragrans, foliis medio terms serratis (R. Caro- 

 lina.) 



Rosa sylvestris vulgaris, flore odorato incarnato (R. canina.) 



and several others. The prolixity of these appel- 

 lations, their variety in every different author, the 

 insufficiency and confusion of the distinctions which 

 they contained, were felt as extreme inconveniences. 

 The attempt of Bauhin to remedy this evil, by a 

 Synonymy, had, as we have seen, failed at the time, 

 for want of any directing principle; and was become 

 still more defective by the lapse of years and the 

 accumulation of fresh knowledge and new books. 

 Haller had proposed to distinguish the species of 

 each genus by the numbers 1, 2, 3, and so on ; but 

 botanists found that their memory could not deal 

 with such arbitrary abstractions. The need of some 

 better nomenclature was severely felt. 



The remedy which Linnaeus finally introduced 

 was the use of trivial names ; that is, the designa- 

 tion of each species by the name of the genus 

 along with a single conventional word, imposed 

 without any general rule. Such names are added 

 above in parentheses, to the specimens of the 



