98 BOTANICAL REFORM. 



oQavo. — ^This was a full and classical commentary on the fourth part 

 of his Fundamenta Botanica already published. He examined in it the 

 names of the genera, species, and bastard species of plants, pointed out 

 inaccuracies, confirmed the good ones, rejefted the bad, and established 

 certain rules, and a new method for the denomination of plants. 



« Botanists," says LinN/Eus, in the third letter which he wrote to 

 Baron Haller, on the 8th of June, 1737, " have hitherto wholly ne- 

 *' glecled the language of their science. Since Tournefort, more 

 " than a thousand generical names have been changed and introduced. 

 " What cause have I to change them ? None, but because they are 

 « not founded on proper grounds and definite laws. The greatest part 

 " of the names of the species of plants are, doubtless, wrong, and if 

 " these are to be changed, why should not the same be done with the 

 *« false names of the genera ! Our successors in the republic of botany 

 «« will ultimately cease to give implicit credit to the authority of the 

 " ancients. Why should we retain the ell-long names of Monolasiocal- 

 " hnomenophyllorum, Hypophylocarpodendorum^ Sec. and other barba- 

 " rian jargon?" 



This reform, however rational and meritorious, met with many con*- 

 tradiftions at first on the part of those whose pride and self-love were 

 aggrieved by it, and who thought it beneath their dignity to receive in- 

 struction from a youth. We shall hereafter speak more amply on thi« 

 subjeft. The celebrated professor Ludwig, at Leipzig, wrote, soon, 

 after the following letter to Baron Haller : What i^ your opinion 

 " of the Critica Botanica Linn^us He certainly is a severe, but 

 " sometimes a fortunate censor of botanists. I like his representations, 



" yet: 



