i02 



BOTANICAL REFORM. 



not choose to arrange the botanical garden after my own method. 

 " My obligations to Boerhaave are too great, and I have too 

 " much respeO: for his memory." Van Roy en insisted on having 

 the garden altered. " Well," said Linn ^us " let us projeQ: some new 

 f system, which shall be neither Boerhaave's nor mine, but which 

 « may be considered as your own." This proposal pleased, and thus 

 originated, after the publication of Clif fort's garden, the new de- 

 scription of the botanical garden at Leyden, and Ro yen's new system 

 of botany, of which, striSly speaking, Linn.-eus himself was the au- 

 thor * 



LiNNxus profited by his stay at Royen's to publish two other 

 works. The one friendship imposed on him as a duty, and the 

 other had for its tendency to put in a clear light the prerogatives of his 

 system, and to establish its predominance. 



The first was the produ6lion of the diligence of his ill-fated friend, 

 the ichthyology of Artedi, which appeared in the beginning of 1739 

 at Leyden; a work, which in Lin nous's own opinion, is unequalled in 

 the natural history of fishes. The second was the Classes Plantarurrti 

 which LiNN^us published in the same year on 656 pages, oflavo. 

 In this work he presented a general and cjrcumstatial view of the six- 

 teen universal and thirteen partial systems till then introduced in bo- 

 tany, from Gesker and Casalpinus, the first systematical botanists 

 down to his own time. Ke criticised the classifications of Mori son, 

 Ray, Dillenius, Knaut, Rivinus, Rupp, Ludwic, Hermann, 

 Boerhaave, TournkfortjVaillanTjSheuchzer, Magnol and 



* Florae Leydensis Procliomiis, cxhibens Plantas qua inHorto Academico Lugduno — Batavo 

 aluntur. Ludgd, Bat. 1740. 



Pontedera, 



