INTRODUCTION TO BOTANY. 
233 
The regularity of this nomenclature was hailed as a great 
improvement, and as a means of fixing the names of plants; 
indeed, as long as the Species Plantarum of Linnaeus him- 
self was considered as the common repertory of botanists, 
it was such ; and this advantage would have remained if 
he had been incapable of error, or botany remained sta- 
tionarv : but further researches have shown that many of 
his species do not agree with the generic character, and 
of course they have since been removed to other genera ; 
that several are collections of a number of species, or even 
of several genera of plants, and of course have been di- 
vided; while new plants have been discovered which are 
not comprehended in his writings. 
The rapidity of these alterations, and the number of the 
works in which they are scattered, exceeding the power of 
the enumerators of plants to collect together as fast as they 
are proposed, obliges those writers who have occasion to 
mention a number of plants, not only to quote once for 
all the repertory, or pinax, from whence the generality of 
the names they use are taken, whether it be the Species 
Plantarum of Linnaeus, or of Wilklenow, the Synopsis 
Plantarum of Persoon, the Dictionnaire de la Botanique 
of Lamarcke, the Systema Vegetabilium of Roemer and 
Schultze, the Regni Vegetabilis Systema Naturale of De 
Candolle, or any other similar work; but also to annex to 
the other names not taken from this more common re- 
pertory, the books, and frequently the editions, from 
whence they are taken, as modern botanical authors often 
change the names they have themselves given to plants. 
This necessity of quoting the works from whence the 
names are taken, because the same name has been used by 
different authors, or even by the same author in different 
works, or editions, to denote different plants, renders the 
supposed advantage of what is falsely called the Linnaean 
nomenclature, since Rivinus was the original proposer, 
and which appears so brief and regular in theory, not only 
a mere nullity in practice, but in reality proves its infe- 
riority to the old method of adding specific differences 
to the generic name, when this method is corrected by the 
canon of Linnaeus, that the distinctions should be taken 
from what may be observed in the plant itself, and not 
from its place of growth or other extraneous circumstances, 
although the convenience of these being noted as accessories 
are acknowledged and used by all ; since neither have the 
