Mar. 81, 1908. The Queensland Naturalist, 
26 
over demonstrated how efficacious an instrument it was 
in enabling us to interpret flower structure and its history. 
Reference to this great man is especially apropos since 
his poetic vocation did not hinder him from pursuing the 
descriptive sciences, and addressing himself to the general 
problems of nature with such success in each case as might 
alone have established his fame. He constantly referred 
to Linnseus (and to Buffon) in his works. The estimation 
in which he held the former may be concluded from the 
following statement on his part : — “ Wir es mir dabei 
ergangen und wie ein so fremdartiger Unterricht auf mich 
gewirkt, kann vielleicht im verlauf dieser Mitt heilungen 
deutlich werden, voiiaufig aber will ich bekennen, dass 
nach Shakspeare und Spinoza auf mich die groste Wirkung 
von Linne ausgegangen, und zwar gerade durch den 
widerstreit, zu welchem er mich aussorderte ” Bildung 
und Umhildmig organisclier Naturen^' (Goethe, Sammtliche 
Werke VI., p. 18, Ed. 1860.) This he precedes bv the 
statement “ Linnes Philosophic der Botanik war mein 
tagliches studium.” 
Linn.® us and Buffon. 
These two great naturalists of the 18th century 
regarded living things from distinct points of view, and so 
arrived at opposite opinions regarding their nature. 
Buffon had no merit as a classifier, he deemed it of supreme 
importance to concentrate attention on the individual 
animal ; to ascertain its structure ; and to be acquainted 
with the intrinsic features of living things in general ; 
as did also his collaborateur, the anatomist, Daubenton 
(c/. T. Huxley — Owen’s Position in the History of Ana- 
tomical Science. Life of Sir R. Owen, p. 280-1.) ^ Linnseus, 
on the other hand— as we have seen — was par excellence, 
a systematiser, and the value of the characters of living 
things wa:i with him subordinate to the requirements of 
his method of arrangement. And aiming as he did at a 
science of universal nature, the fundamental structure of 
living things was perforce beyond the scope of his inquiry, 
where only a superficia] view was possible to the single 
worker. However — and this is overlooked— Linnaeus did 
not less value Buffon’s method of inquiry, and thus he 
wrote : — “ Divisio naturalis animalium ab interna structura 
indicatur.” {Syst. Nat., Ed. XII., vol. I., p. 19). 
It is not surprising therefore that Buffon rejected 
Linnaeus’ system of grouping the members of the animal 
kingdom. On structural grounds he was bound to discard 
any arrangement that did such violence to nature as to 
combine the Walrus, Elephant, Ant-eater, Sloth and 
Manatee (or Dugong) in a single division. 
