294 
LINNAEUS 
maintained by O. von Dalin, the historian, was 
attacked by Browallius on the ground of his own 
observations, which conflicted with Celsius’s state¬ 
ments. Linne, on the other hand, took Celsius’s side, 
till convinced by Browallius to the contrary. His 
name is perpetuated by the genus Browallia , concern¬ 
ing which there has been some misunderstanding. 
How this arose seems unknown, although it was 
current in 1835, and exposed by H. E. Richter in 
his “ Codex Linnaeanus ” that year, but also recorded 
by Augustin in the “ Botaniska Utflygter,” 1 (1843), 
p. 150; the most blatant exposition known to the 
writer is that related by “ X,” in the “ Gardeners’ 
Chronicle,” III. x. (1891), p. 188, thus: 
“ The great botanist Linnaeus had amongst his 
numerous acquaintances a certain friend named John 
Browall, who was very humble in his relations with 
Linnaeus, and, having adopted his new sexual system 
of botany, wrote an article against Siegesbeck defend¬ 
ing that system. Linnaeus, in acknowledgment of his 
friend’s services, dedicated to him a genus of a single 
species, naming it Browallia demissa. Shortly after¬ 
wards, Browall, having been made Bishop of Abo, 
assumed the pomp and dignity of a great magnate, and 
Linnaeus, having discovered a second species of this 
genus, named it B . exaltata. 
“ This excited the wrath of Browall, who proceeded 
to write pamphlets against Linnaeus, denouncing him 
in the most severe language. Later on, Linnaeus dis¬ 
covered a third species differing slightly from the 
original outline of the genus, which he named alienata. 
The two men were never afterwards reconciled to each 
other, and thus we have preserved in the nomenclature 
of this genus an historical incident to which future 
generations of botanists will look back with consider¬ 
able interest.” 
The genus was instituted by Linne in his 
“ Genera plantarum ” in 1737, but first provided with 
the specific name arnericana in 1753, when the 
