OPPONENTS OF LINNAEUS. 
127 
He had already completed in Holland the best part of his design. 
The sway of his new system became wide-spread and predomi- 
nant in a few years. There were, however, men among most nations 
of Europe, who did not agree, or were at least discontented with the 
laws of the new constitution of natural history, and who loaded Lin- 
naeus with censure and blame. Nothing, however, could have been 
more natural in a science which had never been thoroughly learnt, 
never reduced to mathematical uniformity and perfection ; in a science 
where opinions were frequently as different as the heads whence 
they sprung — finally, in a science for which Ad an son alone pro- 
posed sixty -five systems, though none of them has been received. 
Among the German Anti-Linnaeans, we ought especially to reckon 
Dr. Klein at Dantick, who in 1742 published a treatise against the 
new classification of the animal reign: H. Cranz, professor of 
botany at Vienna, a violent antipode in most of his numerous botanical 
works j and among those who conducted themselves with more mo- 
deration and dignity, M. de Necker and Dr. Hacouet, without 
mentioning here the criticisms of many other Germans. — Among the 
English we remark Professor Charles Alston of Edinburgh • — 
among the Dutch Camper; — among the Italians, Professor Julius 
Pontedera at Padua-, Spallanzani and Dr. Cyrilli at Naples ) — 
among the French, especially Ad anson *, and the celebrated Count 
de Buffon, who died on the 16th of April 1788+. 
it founded on the sex of plants be due to Burkhard — yet the execution of this system is new 
« andbelongs to I.inneeus.” See Andanson's Families desplantes. Par. 1763, 8vo._v. i. p. xii. 
* Linn/BUS wrote thus of Adanson to Gesner at Zurich : “ He is either mad orintoxi- 
« cated insanit aut non sobriusest. Haller on the contrary called him a fine head and a 
worthy ritual of LinNaEUS .— Lepidum caput, et temulum Linnxo dignum. 
f See Buffox’s Discours sur la maitiere de trailer l histone naturelle. 
1 
This 
