MERRILL: FXO^'OMIC ASPECTS OF TAXONOMY 53 



not much real improvement has been added, as between the fourth and fifth 



editions As far as I have any influence I pledge it here, that the 



embarrassing innovations of De Candolle and others are no possible use to the 



science of Botany An attempt is made in his Lindley to prove that the 



Artificial method of Linnaeus is unnecessary. In doing this he proposes an 

 Artificial Method'- of eleven pages. As those who have not read Torrey's 

 Lindley will scarcely believe this unaccountable absurdity, they are requested 

 to examine, unbiased, that work between pages Ixvi and Ixxx of the introduc- 

 tion. This artificial system [artificial key to famiHes] is said to lead to the 



Natural Method The improvements upon Linnaeus, which have been 



made, do not authorize any change in the science of Botany other than mere 

 additions and corrections " 



This caustic critique of the natural system of classification is eliminated 

 from the seventh (1836) and eighth (1840) editions of Eaton's "Manual," and 

 in these, although he adhered to the Linnaean artificial system of classifica- 

 tion, he so far relented as to include an epitome of the natural system. If, 

 however, one needs a good illustration of a closed mind, here we have it, and 

 this statement is made in all due regard to Eaton's remarkable accomplish- 

 ments^ although it is only fair to explain that in botany Eaton never claimed 

 originality. He states* that in the field of botany he never aspired to be anything 

 above that of a teacher, translator, and compiler. It should be noted that Eaton 

 italicized his characterization of botany as a progressive science, yet at the same 

 time insisted that the suggested improvements on the Linnaean system did not 

 authorize any changes in the science of botany other than mere additions and 

 corrections ! This is an ultra-conservative, nay, even a reactionary attitude. 



McAllister, p. 235, quotes from John Torrey's letter of November 2, 1833, 

 to L. D. von Schweinitz giving his reaction to edition 6 of Eaton's "Manual" : 

 "This time Torrey was more effusive (italics mine) in his praise of the 

 Manual when he wrote to his friend De Schweinitz 'Have you seen the .6th edn. 

 of Eaton's Manual of Botany ? .... I began to read the preface in a bookstore 

 the other day & it seemed to be a most remarkable performance.' " In view of 

 the circumstances one wonders if the term "effusive" is the corect one, for in 



-Eaton apparently wrote this very hurriedly, for this statement regarding an artificial 

 method is an error. What is presented is an artificial analysis of the orders in the form 

 of a key to the classes (Vasculares, Cellulares), subclasses (Exogenae or dicotyledonous 

 plants, and Endogenae or monocotyledonous plants), tribes (Angiospermae, Gymnosper- 

 mae, Petaloideae and Glumceae), and to the families under each division and subdivision, 

 these, as to limits (but naturally not as to sequence as at present understood) much the 

 same as they stand today. Torrey's "singularly presented" catalogue is merely an arrange- 

 ment of the genera of North^ American plants by families under the natural system! 



■^ McAllister, Ethel M. Amos Eaton. Scientist and Educator, i-xiii, 1-587, illus. 1941. 



^ Manual, ed. 7. iv. 1936. 



