THE PLACE OF LINNZUS IN THE HISTORY OF BOTANY 265 
the pith passing through the rind is resolved into a bud,” &c. 
‘¢ Neither Hugo Mohl nor Wigand nor most of Linneeus’s bio- 
graphers cane to know that his theories are all to be traced to 
Cesalpino And, again: “It is as important to know 
that Li is 
says (p. 80): ‘‘Since the matter of the Isagoge (Jung’s most im- 
portant work) is produced in Ray’s Historia Plantarum in italics, 
with special mention of the source from which it is derived, it can- 
not be doubted that Linneus had made Pn min with the 
teaching of Jung as a young man, in any case before 1738.” On 
p. 81 Sachs emphatically declares: “ As regards thie Sartalnplocs of 
the parts of plants, which was all that the morphology of the day 
atteuierey Linneeus simply adopted all that was contained in the 
Isagoge 0 n ‘¢ His doctrine of metamorphosis is sidiaely 
based on the views of Cesalpino”’ (p. 102). ‘ He reduced to prac- 
cessors, and so must be regarded, if not as the inventor, at least as 
the real founder "of the binary nomenclature of organisms” ) 
ith regard to the doctrine by: sexuality, ‘‘his knowledge of that 
subject was derived from Rudolf Jacob Camerarius”’ (p. 8 0), a and to 
this theory Linnus added arin new, though he contributed 
essentially to its recognition ’’ (p. 81 
“It is manifestly the fifth chapter of the Philosophia Botanica, 
together with the treatise, Sponsalia Plantarum, which led the ad- 
herents of Linnzus, who were pobre of the older literature of the 
subject, and were much impressed by his scholastic dexterity, to 
Bard hie him as the souisde of the sexual theory of plants; whereas 
a more careful study of history shows incontrovertibly that Linnzeus 
helped in this way to disseminate the doctrine, but did absolutely 
nothing to establish it’’ (p. 98). 
Sachs finds it proper, however, ‘‘ to defend ereenten from the 
charge repeatedly brought against him by his contemporaries that 
he was ee to Leibnitz & Burekhard for the nr of his sexual 
system”’ (p. 83). Sachs also awards some praise, alt though this is 
somewhat sarcastic ; ‘ een! anal not only recognize what was 
ood in his predecessors, and occasionally make use of it, but he 
imparted life and fruitfulness to nv ‘thoughts of others by applying 
them as he applied his own, thus bringing out whatever theoretical 
value they possessed. Itis evidently this ene of wa “id ‘geo 
misled his successors into believing that Linneus thought out a 
discovered everything for himself’’ (p. 84). ti is hardly historically 
correct to imply that Linneus’s successors believed that he had 
ha 
others had done before him, and, moreover, frankly admitted that 
he used the thoughts and the experience of his predecessors. But 
we must remember that he spent the earliest part of his life far 
away from the great centres of learning, and the resources of litera- 
Journat or Borany.—Vou. 42. [Sepr. 1904.) 
