268 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
ie aa style of Linnzus is usually considered to be 
remarkably good from its incisiveness and clearness, as well as 
its brevity, and is often held as a model for botanical expression, 
but not even this found favour with Sachs. ‘“ He dealt with every- 
thing about which he wrote in the way in which he dealt with 
treats every subject of which he has to speak, and wherever he can 
in short, numbered sentences, which look like esta of genera 
and species. His mind and character were fully formed in 1736 
spec 
when he wrote his Fundamenta, and he preserved his peculiarities 
of style from that time forward” (p. 91). ‘‘ Where these pecu- 
liarities of manner and expression are suitable, they make a favour- 
able i impression on the reader, as, for instance, in the short account 
he gives of the various systems in the Classes Plantarum. This 
manner is strictly adhered to in the Philosophia also, and it has 
certainly helped not a little to withdraw the attention of his reader 
rom his many fallacies in argument, e specially his oft-recurring 
reasonings in a circle’ (p. 91). ‘‘ This remarkable combination of 
poetic feeling, which animates his periods”’ (p. 9 
With these passages from Sachs’s History we ie to have shown 
the origin of the not unfrequent attacks on the memory of Linneus, 
It is of some interest to note that some of these recent writers do 
not even attempt to present their statements in their own words, 
but simply use those of Sachs. 
Kalischer and Hansen claimed a few months ago in favour of 
the poet Goethe the entire merit of the doctrine of metamorphosis, 
although Goethe himself, in his Versuch der Metamorphose der 
lanzen zu erkldren,” Gotha, 1790, quotes Linneus’s Prolepsis 
Plantarum, where the doctrine is discussed, and confesses to having 
a good knowledge of Linnzus’s works. Not even Sachs considers 
oethe’s views on this question as being of any great consequence. 
“Tt was shown by Prof. L. Celakowsky, in 1885,* to what extent 
Linneus had influenced the deve 2 argh of this doctrine, and, still 
ignoring Celakow aay 8 opinions which are based on thorough in- 
vestigations, the writers referred to give sweeping, general state- 
ments, for which they have no other Damistiog than Chauvinism. 
Celakowsky: ‘‘ Linnés Anteil an der Lehre von der Metamorphose 
der idign: es Engler’ 8 Botanische Jahrbucher, Bd. vi. 1885. 146-186. 
