128 BIOLOGY AND ITS MAKERS 
To do justice, however, to the discernment of Linnzus, it 
should be added that he was fully aware of the artificial 
nature of his classification. As Kerner has said: ‘It is not 
the fault of this accomplished and renowned naturalist if a 
greater importance were attached to his system than he him- 
self ever intended. Linnaeus never regarded his twenty-four 
classes as real and natural divisions of the vegetable kingdom, 
and specifically says so; it was constructed for convenience of 
reference and identification of species. A real natural system, 
founded on the true affinities of plants as indicated by the 
structural characters, he regarded as the highest aim of botan- 
ical endeavor. He never completed a natural system, leaving 
only a fragment (published in 1738).”’ 
Terseness of Descriptions.—His descriptions were marked 
by extreme brevity, but by great clearness. This is a second 
feature of his work. In giving the diagnosis of a form he 
was very terse. He did not employ fully formed sentences 
containing a verb, but words concisely put together so as to 
bring out the chief things he wished to emphasize. As an 
illustration of this, we may take his characterization of the 
forest rose, ‘‘ Rosa sylvestris vulgaris, flore odorata incarnato.” 
The common rose of the forest with a flesh-colored, sweet- 
smelling flower. In thus fixing the attention upon essential 
points he got rid of verbiage, a step that was of very great 
importance. 
His Idea of Species.—A third feature of his work was 
that of emphasizing the idea of species. In this he built 
upon the work of Ray. We have already seen that Ray 
was the first to define species and to bring the conception 
into natural history. Ray had spoken of the variability of 
species, but Linnzeus, in his earlier publications, declared 
that they were constant and invariable. His conception of a 
species was that of individuals born from similar parents. 
It was assumed that at the original stocking of the earth, one 
