264 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
also accustomed to acknowledge this. He, of course, did not men- 
tion his sources in cases where he was speaking of facts and 
theories which were well known, and, so to say, common property, 
just as little as any writer <c% Demeter When Sachs (p. 37) in- 
sinuates that ‘no one can read both authors (Cesalpino and 
re) without lighting aoe unfrequently upon passages in 
Linne ‘undamenta, or in his Philosophia Botanica, whic 
aay he does not even give any instances where this pretended 
‘‘ borrowing” has taken place. Speaking of Robert Morison, and 
the fact that this author was “reproached by his contemporaries 
and successors with having borrowed without porean tenons from 
Cesalpino,” Sachs finds “the following excu “This was an 
exaggeration.” But no such defence is slleend in favour of 
Linneus! Yet one might more easily detect a closer relationship 
pe yh pee works of 4 ies and Cesalpino than between Linnzus 
and the 
an historian to study the “source kom which Linnzus drew, 
critical glance he left quite alone; it did not occur to him to 
examine into the cause of the phenomena that interested him. He 
elassified them, and had done with them.’’ Nothing shows better 
than this last sentence how little Sachs, in fact, was acquainted 
with the works and thoughts of Linneus. Whatever may be said 
in favour of Sachs’s History of Botany—and that work has certainly 
pany me rits—the treatment of Linneus’s influence on the develop- 
t of botanical science is unjust. Sachs, Bice in most of his 
works combined aches om e8 s with German thoroughness, has, 
in regard to Linneus, unfortunatly been led iki and he has not 
cir ‘the soaon to study the most prominent figure in the history 
of the science which he has undertaken to describe. 
With reference to Linneus's Philosophia Botanica, Sachs says, 
for , ee ee on p. 94; ‘‘ The parts in the individual plant which 
the beginner must distinguish are three—the root, the herb, and 
the parts of lactiicaion it which enumeration Linneus departs 
om his predecessors, by sang the fructification and the herb 
together are opposed to the root. In the central part of the plant 
is the pith enclosed the te formed from the bast; the bast is 
distinguishe] from the rind, which again is covered by the epi- 
_ dermis; these anatomical facts are from Malpighi; the seatement 
expressed by Linnzus in the statement that the end of a thread of 
