OPPONENTS OF LINN£US, 
125 
met with envious persons, who took a delight in rendering the fame of 
originality an objeft of dispute. 
Heister’s malign reproaches against Linnaeus, on this occasion, 
were really unmerited. The little production of Burkhard, quite 
a literary phenomenon, had never been mentioned in any botanical 
work, had never acquired much publicity, and how could it therefore 
be considered as the source of the modern system of Linnaeus. The 
writings of Jung, or Jungius, whom we already mentioned above in the 
history of botany, and who published them in the last century, were in a 
similar manner alledged against the prince of botanists. But this charge 
was of as little validity as that of Burkhard s letter. When Linnaeus* 
then a young student at Upsal, proje&ed his new botanical plan, he 
had never once seen t^ose works, and we can adduce convincing proofs 
of this assertion. DoCtor Gieseke at Hamburgh , who heard the leftures 
of Lin naus in 17715 mentioned once, in familiar conversation, the 
writings of Jung; and, especially, his principal botanical work — 
Doxoscopice Physical minora. Lin n .eu s replied that he was utteily un- 
acquainted with it. Gieseke, after his return sent him this work, upon 
which Lin N.E us thanked him in a letter of the 24th of December 1774* 
in the following words : “ Three days ago I received your rare present 
cc of Junc’s Doxoscopice which I never saw before. I thank you for 
« this work in the most obliging manner. I see the author has been a 
« very laborious and ingenious man for his age.’ In honour to his 
name, Linneus junior, called afterwards a new North- American plant, 
gfungia* 
That some ideas of the sexes of plants had already been hinted 
before, is an incontrovertible fa£t, and Linnaeus did not him- 
self 
