BOTANICAL REFORM. 
98 
oftavo — 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^us, in the third letter which he wrote to 
Baron Haller, on the 8th of June, 1737, « have hitherto wholly ne- 
“ gleBed the language of their science. Since To urn e fort, more 
« than a thousand generical names have been changed and introduced. 
<£ What cause have I to change them? None, but because they are 
{S 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 
i ' ancients. Why should we retain the ell-long names of Monolasiocal- 
“ lenomenophyllorum, Hypophylocarpodendorum , See. and other barba- 
“ rian jargon?” 
This reform, however rational and meritorious, met with many con- 
tradiaions 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- 
struaion from a youth. We shall hereafter speak more amply on this 
subjea. The celebrated professor Ludwig, at Leipzig, wrote soon 
after the following letter to Baron Haller : “ What is your opinion 
<s of the Critica Botanica of Linnaus? He certainly is a severe, but 
“ sometimes a fortunate censor of botanists. I like his representations, 
« yet 
