*20 
OPPONENTS OF LINNAEUS. 
them with the dust. When the latter published his Genera Plantanm 
in *737* Heister, fired with indignation, wrote thus to Haller: 
« Linnaeus reje&s all the characters defined by his predecessors, and 
« introduces new names to those plants on which the best ones have 
li already been bestowed ; will there be many to follow such inno- 
vations?” — and Linnaeus mentioned in his system: {{ that all the 
“ botanists considered the fru&ification in plants as the basis of good 
<c order, Heister alone accepted, who fixed the genera by the petals.” — 
All this could not be granted j war was therefore declared. 
Heister thought it unworthy of his fame to commence hostilities 
himself. He left it to a champion, one of his pupils, DoCtor John 
George Siecesbeck, who at his recommendation was appointed Pro- 
fessor of Botany at St. Peter sburgh ,.— This man’s celebrity turned to 
his shame, and his insignificant name was only kept in remembrance, 
owing to the greatness of the genius whom he so much strove to lessen. 
His conduCt, as an opponent, was the more impudent, as he was him- 
self destitute of that knowledge which might have made him a com- 
petent judge of learning. The celebrated Gmelin, who lived at the 
same time at Petersburgh , delineates his character in these words : 
** Siegesbeck has scarcely a superficial knowledge of botany, he un- 
t£ derstands the writings of others as little as he knows himself. He is 
« contented with the bare names of plants suggested to him by his sterile 
ft brain, destitute of all penetration.*” 
Linn A us had for some time carried on a friendly correspendence 
with Siegesbeck; but the allurements and examples of Heister, 
* Siegesbeckius nec primis labris Botanicen degustavit, nec quid seribant alii, nec se 
ipsum ir telligit, contentus solis plantarum denominationibus, quas sterile et dottrinae orbura 
ingeniura ipsi suggerit. Epistol. ad Haller, vol. ii. p. no. 
soon 
