OPPONENTS OF LINN 1 US. 
117 
“ Linnaeus” — says the Chevalier Zimmermann, “ a pupil and 
“ friend of Haller, with whom he was well acquainted by several 
“ years domestic connexion, — had in the course of a few years pulled 
“ down the whole structure of botany, that he might ereCt on the ruins 
“ of his predecessors his own system ; he rejected every thing foreign 
“ to his own precepts, and sent the greatest botanists into a school, 
« where they were first to learn the signification of the names he had 
« created, and the laws of his system. Haller, with placid eye, saw 
« this mighty delator step forth ; he was not insensible of the necessity 
« of a reform, but saw at the same time, that he went too far. He fol- 
lowed Linn & us where ever he thought the truth was his guide, 
“ but where the latter only dealt in hypotheses, he there quitted him. 
“ The plurality of methods,” said he, “ is not hurtful, unless they grow 
“ too imperious, like the Linn^ean system.” 
This pride of Linn je. us in his science, this exclusive authority which 
he maintained, and the unfriendly and rigorous animadversions which 
sometimes attended his sway, excited the displeasure of Haller, and 
gave him frequent opportunities to indulge himself in strong censure. W e 
shall quote here some of those criticisms, as we should otherwise offend 
against candor and truth, and expose in a diminitive light the great 
merits of Linnaeus, were we to pass over in silence the reproaches 
and objections raised against him. 
Baron Haller having been somewhat severely treated in the 
critique given by Linn je us, in the year 1745, of the Flora Suecica , ex- 
pressed himself as follows in the review of the Fauna Suecica : “ The 
“unbounded dominion which Linnaeus has assumed in the animal 
« reign, must upon the whole appear disgusting to many persons. He 
i « considered 
