L U D 



Mm, to build fyftems, and toexercife criticifm, againft him. 

 Ludwijr, in 1756, 1758, and 1759, puJjliflied three dif- 

 fertations on the colours of flowers, tending to (hew their 

 vanablenefb ! If he has in one inllance fu^Qrelled an example 

 to the contrary, he is in that furely moll unfortuvate. Hal- 

 ler fays he points out the Fraxiiiella (Didamnus albus of 

 Linnaeus) as a cafe in which colour makes a fpecific dif- 

 ference. As this plant is frequently raifed from Iced, and 

 the progeny differs, under every body's eyes, in having fome 

 white-flowered plants, perhaps in every crop, we prefume 

 the qncjlion may be readily decided ; whetlrcr tiie Icfler 

 White Fraxinella, figured in Rivinus, Fl. Pentap. Irr. 

 t. 1 ;5, be a dilHnCt fpecies, of which we fee little probabi- 

 lity, or a variety in fize as well as colour. Rivinus himfelf 

 fays the common one, t. 134, is cither red or white. 



Ludwig publilhed is I7^?7 his Defiuitloues Pluntarum, in 

 8vo. for tlie ufe of his pupils. In this the genera of plants 

 are arranged in a method fuppofed to be natural, founded 

 on the corolla in the firll place, the fubordinate charafters 

 being taken from the fruit. The generic dillinftions are 

 derived from the herbage, floiver, fmell, taile, colour, or 

 any thing that came in the author's way ; certainly with no 

 advantage whatever over the laws and praclicc of Linna:us, 

 but rather evincing, at every ftep, the' fuperiority of the 

 latter to the vague fcheme of his opponent. In another 

 little volume of Ludwig, the ^phcri/mi Botanic!, pubhdied 

 in if^S, the afl"ertion of his being "a Linna;an in difguife" 

 is llronc;ly juftitied. In vain does the writer try to forget 

 the Ph'iUf'jphia Botan'tca, and to feek originality, at any 

 rate, by wandering from its light. In vain does he extol 

 the fyllera of Rivinus in preference to all others. He is 

 brought back by his own iudgment, in fpite of hi-.nfelf, at 

 every ftep ; and as he could never give the lead degree of 

 popularity to the fyftem he extolled, the flighted "iludy of 

 his works will fliew it to have been a mill-llone about his 

 own neck. Boehmer gave a new and improved edition of 

 the Dejiiihioms Plantarum in 1 760. Vv'hether any ufe is 

 mad:- of this work at prefent, among the various botanical 

 fchools on the Continent, we have never heard, but we be- 

 lieve it has fallen into oblivion. 



In 17.1.2, and again in 17,7, our author publilhed his 

 Injl'ituihnes Hyiorko-Phyfici Rsgul Vegef.aliUs, in 8vo. ; ftill 

 in purfuit of novelty rather than of ti-uth. he veje£ls the 

 I.innoean diilinttions between animals and vegetables, found- 

 ing the charafteriilic mark of the latter on the fuppofed 

 propuilion of their fluids through a cellular texture, and 

 not through a vafcular fyftem as in animals. This diftinc- 

 tion is now known to have no foundation. In this work at 

 length even the difguife of a Linnjsan is aimoft laid afide, a 

 fyllem of arrangement being propofed in which the' ftamens 

 .and ftyles make an elfen'.ial, if not a leading, feature. The 

 favourite old fyftem of Ri.vinus ftil! takes precedence, though 

 it ferves only as an additional impediment in the way of 

 natural affinities, which defeft is in fome meafure concealed 

 by the primary characters not being ftrifily followed. 

 Thus, though Eryngium is violently feparated by its inflo- 

 refccnce from its natural allies, Iberis is filently left amongft 

 the Tdrapetuli regulares. The Umbdlaii are kept together 

 by tht-ir inflorefcence, in fpite of the diverfity ef their 

 flovi-ers, as to regularity or irregularity ; a difficulty which 

 Rivinus had previoufly been obliged to overlook. It is 

 remarkable that our author, in thus profefi"edly adopting 

 the principles of Rivinus and Linnaeus combined, and dif- 

 claiming as he does, p. 86, all pretenfions to originality, 

 never mentions thofe perfons from whom he had long ago 

 aflerted that Linnaeus borrowed his fyftem. This volume 

 may therefore b« confidered as a tacit tribute of refpett to 



L U D 



the illuftrious Swede, arifing from its author's progrefs irt 

 judgment and experience. He had no motive to withhold 

 this tribute, as Lmn^us never relented nor repelled his at- 

 tacks. The latter fays in a letter to Haller, " I have read 

 the Characlers of Dr. Ludwig entirely through. He has 

 given very great attention to the fubjeA ; but I wifh the 

 authors whom he chiefly follows may not have led him 

 aftray. All that comes from Boerhaave is not oracular. 

 I every day au8;ment or correft my own characters, which 

 are nothing but generic dcfcriptions, and therefore differ 

 trom th'jfe of Ludwig and Tournefort, as a fpecific name 

 (or definition) differs from the dtfcription of a plant. Both 

 are neceffary in Botany." Ep'tjl. ad Halhrum v. i. 312. 

 We give this paifage entire, becaufe Haller in his index 

 fays Linnajus here " carps at Ludwig," than which furely 

 nothing can be more unjuft. 



Our author began, in 1760, to publilh impreffions, chiefly 

 of medicinal plants, taken from the dried fpccimen with 

 printer's ink, or with finoked paper, in folio, under the 

 title of Eclypa VcgelaViUum, which he continued from time 

 to time. 8uch impreffions give undoubtedly a correct out- 

 hne, at leaft if the plant be fully difplaytd, but the reft ii 

 a mafs of confuflon ; efpecially as the more elevated parts, 

 which fliould be light, are neceffanly the darkeft. He 

 wrote alfo occafionaliy on medico-botanical fubjects, as on 

 the etfeds of extraiA of Stramonium, and of the Belladonna, 

 or Deadly Nightfhade, in the epilepfy. His opinion feems 

 not to have been favourable of either. 



Ludwig died at Leipfic in 1773, aged 64. He left a 

 fon named Chriftian Fredrick, born in 1 751, who became 

 Profeffor of Natural Hiftory in the fame univerfity, and is 

 the author of various trafts on Botany, Anatomy, and Phy^ 

 fiology.— Ludwig's Works. Hall. Bibl. Bot. Dryandr. 

 Bibl. Banks. S. 



LUDWIGIA, in Botany, named by Linnaus in honour 

 of Chriftian Theophilus Ludwig, Profefi'or of Medicine in the 

 univerfity of Leipfic. (See the preceding article Ludwjg 

 C.T.) Linn. Gen. 60. Schreb. 83. Wiild. Sp. PI. v. i. 

 672. Mart. Mill. Dia. v; 3. Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2. v. i! 



265. Jufl". 319 Lamarck lUuftr. t. 77. Gxrtn. t. 31. 



Clrffs and order, Tetrandria Alonogynia. Nat. Ord. Caly- 

 eantham, Linn. Onagrx, Juff. 



Gen. Ch. Cal. Perianth fuperior, of one leaf, p.^rmanent, 

 cloven into four, lanceolate, widely fpreading fegments, 

 equal in le:igth to the corolla. Cor. Petals four, inverfely 

 heart.ftiapcd, flat, greatly fpreading, equal. Stam Fila- 

 ments four, awl-fliaped, creit, Ihort ; anthers fimple, ob- 

 long, ereft. Pijl. Germen inferior, quadrangular, clothed 

 with the bafe of the calyx ; ftyle cylindrical, as long as the 

 ftamens ; ftigma flightly four-fided,' capitate. Perk. Cap. 

 fule of four valves, the partitions oppofite to the valves. 

 Seeds numerous, fmall. Recept. colum'nar, membranaceous, 

 four-winged ; wings at the angles of the partitions, bearing 

 feed at each fide. 



Efi". Ch. Corolla of four petals. Calyx four-cleft, fupe,. 

 rior. Capfule fquare, inferior, of four cells, and many 

 feeds. 



1. L. altermfol'ia. Linn. Sp. PI. 173. Trew, Rar. p 2. 

 t. 2. (Lyfimachia non pappofa, flore luteo majore ; Pluli». 

 Aim. t. 203. f. 2.) — Leaves alternate, lanceolate. Stalks 

 axilL-u-y, fingle-flowered. Stem erecl, angular. Calyx- 

 leaves remarkably large. — Native of Virginia, and feiit from 

 thence, to Miller, by Dr. Dale before 175c. It flowers in 

 June and July. — Root annual. Stem about a foot high, up- 

 right, branching. Flowers folitary, fmall ai.d 'yellow». 

 fituated at the bafe of the leaf-ftalks. 



2. L. hlrfuta. Willd. n. 2. Lamarck Didt. v. 3. 614 . 



Leaves 



