Search: 1800-1809::1807::09::21 in date 
Sorted by:

Showing 11 of 1 item

From:
Samuel Goodenough
To:
Sir James Edward Smith
Date:
21 Sep 1807
Source of text:
GB-110/JES/COR/11/59, The Linnean Society of London
Summary:

Sometimes gains more from attempting to solve difficulties than the solution to the difficulty itself. Agrees with Smith regarding his "Syllabus" and that in Smith's plain illustration and management it would become a very popular "Philosphia Botanica". Believes the best mode of strenghtening the Linnaean system is to suggest criticisms and hints on improving it. Laments that Artistotle did not begin Linnaeus' work but believes Smith has "laid a foundation of solid & progressive improvement". Advises Smith with his new work to retain all the classes as they now stand, especially ['Monoecia'], 'Dioecia', and 'Polygamia' as they are necessary to a system based upon the structure and situation of fructification. Smith's term "diclinia" correct and compares with substantive terms such as 'Monogynia' and 'Polygamia' and discusses Linnaeus' use of Latin genders. Dissatisfied with the look of [Dawson] Turner's "Fucus". Informed that Turner using remarks of his, [Ameila Warren Griffiths' (1768-1858)] and [Elizabeth Hill's (c 1760-1850)] in stating [John] Stackhouse's 'Fucus abrotanifolius' and 'Fucus disours' are the same plant, hopes they are properly credited, Stackhouse was too jealous to do so.

Discusses sending and receipt of letters.

Contributor:
The Linnean Society of London