372 BUFFON 



stone ; in each case the seekers for what does not exist 

 may find no end of useful things. 



The ancients, especially Aristotle and Pliny, were, he 

 thinks, far better qualified to write upon natural history 

 than any of the moderns. They did not trouble them- 

 selves about useless insects whose manoeuvres gratify 

 some modern observers (this is meant for E^aumur), nor 

 count the stamens of plants which possess no medicinal 

 virtues. It would be better to do as Pliny did, and 

 simply name in alphabetical order at the end of the 

 series all the plants which have no useful properties. 



Tournefort's classification of plants was, he thinks, 

 good enough. Linnaeus, who needlessly tried to upset 

 Tournefort, had mixed up trees and herbs, and put into 

 the same class the mulberry and the nettle, the tulip 

 and the barberry. All was now drawn out in Greek, 

 and the names of all the plants were changed. One 

 could not stir without the microscope ; size, shape, and 

 all evident parts of the plant were ignored ; classification 

 had become a matter of counting stamens. What were 

 we to do if the plant had no stamens, or if the stamens 

 varied in number ? Species, he goes on, should not be 

 distinguished except where the diff'erences are quite 

 obvious, and every obvious difference should be denoted 

 by an adjective. He repudiates binary nomenclature, 

 and likes every animal and plant to have a single name 

 of its own, a vernacular and intelligible name. 



The Linnean classification of animals pleases him no 

 better than that of the plants. He complains that the 

 serpents, shells, and crustaceans are not ranked as 

 primary divisions. The number of the classes should be 

 increased. Instead of unfamiliar groups, which take no 

 note of place of abode, he would retain the obvious 

 divisions of quadrupeds living on the earth, birds living 



