ot Pap and went through numerous editions. He wrote 
ome works on t ssh practice of medicine, in 
eh opinions are Pate on the mechanical principles 
rhaavian {chool, chemiltry being {carcely more con- 
tions, in aie, 
trantlati 
feifter feems ot to have had a tafte for botany, and to 
have colleétéd plants, as Haller obfervesy in his various jour- 
neys. This taite enabled. him to a the botamical chair at 
Hel paid great atten- 
tion to the garden there, which he much et and of which . 
ifhed a catalogue in 1734,.1n Svo., arsanged alphabeti- 
cally. At the end of this little ph oe 
genera, moftly named after botanilts, or gir without any 
d principles of nomenclature. Still stele are their defi- 
loft fight 
- only clue to 
nitions well chofen. Heifter ght 
folid botanical charaGers, the frudtifcation, loofely re cae 
the whole plant, and choofing his difcriminative marks from . 
the moft vague and trifling fources. Thus, baal, Ama- 
Wanthus tricolor a genus, chiefly on account of its coloured 
leaves, and he names this new genus P/ittacus, becaufe its 
hues refemble a parrot; not confidering that the name is 
already eflablithed in zoology, and that any perfon might as 
well make a genus of a white Sg and call it a Harpe be- 
caufe es horfes are white. Fp nt ia. indeed. hi 
rtation of one of his. pupils 
This, by fee: is 
oo 
as a man who th 
have thought “ea had he. been favoured with leifure to 
look Sony and not been warpe 
for a natural a atangernen 
ee Ibe fous thofe of the flower. Our “ideas on Tihs 
=i Aca 1741, Our author ae ie a as ale toon ok 
ifhes 16 new | 
ne of 
‘ticula ates 
re he profiel ‘ei frflern of Ve 
will not allow his an 
“eo oi sce fer 
i feraple, and wo 
of their thape or number ; that they could fee nothing of the 
‘ampere or pif of papilionaceous flowers, without fepa- 
the p of which it a ae they never thought. 
till thofe a, ei of themes. They found no ‘Tele 3 
Snes ob- 
i be- 
with ice he itruggled againt it. 
i Se 
juitly due toa ling with adverfity, and a 
well-turned mind will, in acltber cafe, withhold its admiration 
or affiftance. Heifter is not much more candid in his criticifms 
of the Linnzean nomenclature, for as he could not perceive the 
ete: to 12 words, in — of the old more compendiou 
pharmaceutical names, that objeétion has been Ebtcqacally 
removed by the invention of trivial or a ic names.—An- 
other differtation of Heitter’s, publithed in O&, 174.1, de No- 
minum Plantarum Mutatione utili ac noxia,is a more dufate and 
elaborate attack on the nomenclature of the great Swedifh 
extraordinary flow of bile than was ufual among con- 
mor 
The portrait of ae 
Whisceee he re = 
tute of cage or irritability. 
purfued with ardour, and perhaps as he advanced in 
feated in profetionl ftate, he grew more pertinacious in bis 
opinions. is fubfequent attacks on Linneus are 
marked with more hana but proportionably, as ufual, 
with o reafon, and therefore we pafs them over here. In 
Though ie 
ut (if we may fo call Po ey who 
eat or cenfured him) to contrive new names for 
original ideas, he himfelf changes old ones - 
ould call Briza, Tremularia 3 Coix, 
Ldecyeari Fefluca, Feflucaria ; Mefembryanthemum, Ficula 3. 
: &c- 
tee 
We hall conclude with mentioning a very fplendid oahii- 
cation of Heifter in folio, i in 1753» in which say et 
