360 
LINNAEUS 
honestly criticized his methods and system. The 
rest of the objectors are negligible, and not seldom 
only repeaters of what others had said. Mention 
should here be made of J. Sachs, who was without 
doubt a very eminent researcher, but whose history of 
botany suffers from a one-sidedness of conception and 
contempt of other branches of botany, besides the few 
upon which he wrote. His book “ Geschichte der 
Botanik ” has been the quarry whence certain persons 
have obtained their information; while neglecting the 
actual productions of Linne, they have ventured to 
pronounce judgment on him and his authorship. The 
contempt shown by Sachs for botanists of other 
nationalities is lamentable and reprehensible. 
If one takes the trouble to investigate a number 
of these anti-Linneans, the first place must be assigned 
to those lacking knowledge of Linne’s works. Soon 
after his death, Vicq d'Azyr criticized his medical 
writings, and accused him of touching on matters he 
did not understand, as for instance, that he wrote on 
the use of the muscles. Unhappily for his own credit, 
he was dealing with the thesis “ De usu muscorum ”— 
the use of Mosses, not as he misread it, “ De usu 
musculorum ”; and he has not lacked successors, who 
negligently turned over the leaves of books which 
demanded attentive study. Even Professor T. M. 
Fries admits, that after repeated perusals of Linne’s 
writings, he often came upon matters which had easily 
escaped notice. 
Again, a want of reflection is the cause of some 
complaints levied against Linne, as without careful 
study, it is easy to condemn him for a statement, which 
later he publicly abandoned; for he never stood still, 
but was always learning. Thus he is reproached for 
his belief in the permanence of species, vital conditions, 
etc., and in his “ Philosophia Botanica ” he says, 
“ Species tot numeramus quot diversae formae in 
primitio sunt creatae ” (We reckon so many species as 
were created of diverse form in the beginning), but in 
