Identification Keys & The Natural Method

Identification Keys, the "Natural Method," and the Development of Plant Identification
Manuals
Author(s): Sara T. Scharf
Source: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 2009), pp. 73-117
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40271533 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 09:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of
Biology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.40 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:21:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of the History of Biology (2009) 42:73-1 17 © Springer 2008
DOI 10.1007/sl0739-008-9161-0
IdentificationKeys, the "Natural Method,"

and the Development of Plant Identification Manuals
SARA T. SCHARF
Institutefor the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology
University of Toronto
91 Charles St. West, Room 316
Toronto, ON
Canada M5S 1K7
E-mail: st.scharf@utoronto.ca
Abstract. The origins of field guides and other plant identification manuals have been
poorly understood until now because little attention has been paid to 18th century
botanical identification guides. Identification manuals came to have the format we
continue to use today when botanical instructors in post-Revolutionary France
combined identification keys (step-wise analyses focusing on distinctions between plants)
with the "natural method" (clustering of similar plants, allowing for identification by
gestalt) and alphabetical indexes. Botanical works featuring multiple but linked
techniques to enable plant identification became very popular in France by the first
decade of the 19th century. British botanists, however, continued to use Linnaeus's sexual
system almost exclusively for another two decades. Their reluctance to use other methods
or systems of classification Canbe attributed to a culture suspicious of innovation, anti-
French sentiment and the association of all things Linnaean with English national pride,
fostered in particular by the President of the Linnean Society of London, Sir James
Edward Smith. The British aversion to using multiple plant identification technologies in
one text also helps explain why it took so long for English botanists to adopt the natural
method, even after several Englishmen had tried to introduce it to their country.
Historians of ornithology emphasize that the popularity of ornithological guides in the
19th and 20th centuries stems from their illustrations, illustrations made possible by
printing technologies that improved illustration quality and reduced costs. Though
illustrations are the most obvious features of late 19th century and 20th century guides,
the organizational principles that make them functional as identification devices come
from techniques developed in botanical works in the 18th century.
Keywords: field guide, history of botany, Lamarck, Candolle, natural method, keys
Bird watchers, mushroom hunters, and naturalistsof all kinds are

familiarwith field guides and other types of referenceworks used to
identifyspecimens.These books contain the namesand descriptionsof

74 SARA T. SCHARF
organisms,usuallyillustratedwith drawingsor photographs.They are

designed for amateursand professionalsalike to identify organisms
quickly.Theyrangein size fromheavy,multi-volumereferencetomesto
pocket editions.
Roger Tory Peterson'sguidesto birdsare perhapsthe most famous
field guides today, at least in North America,but well-lovedguides to
otherorganismsalso exist.Despitetheirprevalenceand popularity,very
little has been written about how, when, and where identification
manualsoriginated.The successof illustratedornithologicalguides in
particularhas biased researchon the history of identificationmanuals
towardsbirdbooks publishedin the late 19thand early20th centuries.1
Diane Schmidt'sField guide to field guides(1999) includessections on
guides to other kinds of living things, but the author herself charac-
terizedher explorationof the history of the genre as "very brief and
superficial."2The overwhelmingmajorityof historiesof identification
manuals, including Schmidt's,focus on works publishedin English,
primarilyin the USA.3 Despite the scholarly bias among studies of
identificationmanuals toward English-languagebird guides, ornitho-
logical works were not the first field guides to appear.In fact, French
botanists had been using very sparselyillustratedbooks in the field
successfullyfor almost a centurybeforethe works consideredto be the
first bird guides were published.4Eighteenth-century botanicalguides
may lack visual appeal, but they are certainly worthy of scholarly
attention.
A more comprehensivestudy of the origins of identificationman-
uals, beginningearlierthan the Victorianperiod, requiresa great deal
of interdisciplinaryand multilingualresearch.It involves an exami-
nation of the constraintsaffectingthe publicationof illustratedworks
in the 18th century, the history of indexing and of other text navi-
gation devices that grew into identificationkeys during that period,
18th century debates about what arrangementsof living things were
expected to do (expressedin terms of how "natural"or "artificial"
1
E.g. Stevenson et al., 2003; Dunne, 2003, pp. 71-73; Dunlap, Tom Dunlap on
early bird guides (January 2005 [cited June 21 2007]); available from http://www.
historycooperative.org/journals/eh/ 10.1/gallery.htm; Barrow, 1998; Weidensaul, 2007;
Smolker, 1967. The most comprehensive and sensitive studies of bird guides remain
Barrow 1998, pp. 57, 156, and 165 in particular, and Weidensaul 2007, pp. 199-226.
2 I.e.
Schmidt, 1999, xii-xx and personal communication (email), February 5th, 2008.
3 An
exception: Munera-Roldan and Côrdoba-Côrdoba, 2007, which is about the
history of ornithological illustration, particularly as it pertains to the birds of Colombia.
See note 1. Most of these authors consider the first "real" bird field guides to have
been published in the last decades of the 19th century.

PLANT IDENTIFICATIONMANUALS 75
they were), and contemporarybotanicalpedagogy.That is a tall order

and it does not fit under the aegis of any one modern discipline.5
Studying the origins of this genre of publicationis rewarding,as it
contributes to a better understandingof text navigation devices,
"natural"and "artificial"classifications,and the roles the recruitment
of new plant collectors and botanical pedagogy played in the devel-
opment of botany as a discipline.
I will begin by providing an overview of the ways the history of
botany has usually been treated by historians.I will show how our
understandingof the developmentof botany as a disciplinehas his-
torical roots in the first half of the 19th century, when botanists
definedtheir pursuitof the "naturalmethod"of plants as scientificby
demonizingarrangementsof plants that, unlike the natural method,
did not privilegekeepingsimilarplants groupedtogether.I will discuss
how constraintson the publishingof accurateillustrationsaffectedthe
way botanistspresentedmaterialin their books. Botanistscame to use
highly structuredstandardizedtechniquesat many levels of organi-
zation of their works. The techniquesallowing the works to function
as plant identificationtools included a standardizedtechnicalvocab-
ulary, a standardizedorder in which botanists describedplant parts,
the use of point-formnotation, a regularlayout of text on each page,
the arrangementof descriptionsof each kind of plant over many
pages, the use of indexes,and cross-referenceslinkingdifferentpartsof
the books. In the time of John Ray (1627-1705),consideredone of the
fathersof botany, none of these things was standardized,save for the
use of indexes. I trace how the format used in field guides, floras,
monographsand identificationmanualstoday developedover the 18th
century as botanists experimentedwith the best ways to store and
transmitinformationabout plants. The elaborationof differenttech-
niques optimizedfor differentpurposeswas particularlyimportantin
this respect.From idiosyncraticarrangementsof plants that botanists
tried, unsuccessfully,to use for all purposes, botanists developed
hierarchicalarrangementsof descriptions enabling the analysis of
specimens one step at a time. These grew into identificationkeys,
whereasthe techniqueof clusteringplants accordingto their similarity
to each other became known as the "naturalmethod." I emphasize
the contributionsof Carl Linnaeus and Jean-Baptistede Monet de
Lamarckto this process.The innovativeuse of multiplearrangements
of plants in single books is attributedto a number of lesser-known
5 This article is meant as a
quick overview of the development of plant identification
technologies. I have explored these topics in greater depth elsewhere (Scharf, 2007).

76 SARA T. SCHARF
botanists active in France during and after the French Revolution,

though the popularityof the format spreadthroughoutFrancelargely
due to the success of Augustin-Pyramusde Candolle'sreworkingof
Lamarck'sinfluentialflora of France. I contrast the late 18th- and
early 19th-centuryexperimentationwith formats of botanicaltexts in
Francewith the reluctanceof English-speakingbotaniststo adopt new
methods. Finally, I discuss the parallels and differencesamong the
developmentof ornithologicalguides and botanical guides. Although
plants are modularwhile birds have fixed numbersof body parts, and
plants are sessile, while birds move, the structuredarrangementof
informationabout specimensin the books we use to identify these
differentorganismsis remarkablysimilar.I argue that these similari-
ties resultfrom the availabilityof similartechnologies- ink on paper,
bound in books - to meet identificationneeds in both of these disci-
plines, technologiesfirst developedin 18th centurybotany.
Historiographical Bias
The developmentof the differentcomponentsof the highly integrated

structure peculiar to identification manuals occurred in botanical
works during the 18th century.The relationshipsamong the different
parts of these works also became stabilizedin stages over this time.
The resultingstructureis what gives identificationmanualstheir value
as scientifictools and what differentiatesthem from natural history
narratives,miscellaniesor ordinarylists. Despite the uniquenessof this
genre of texts, a recentcitation study noted that, althoughfield guides
are often cited by biologistsand are "commonin libraries... [they]are
generallynot consideredscholarly,"6that is, serious scientificworks
worthy of attention. Studiesof naturalhistoryworks as identification
tools are rare. Instead, historians of the book have been occupied
primarilywith the holdings of particularlibraries,literary formats,
publishing houses and printing technology. They have not paid
attention to the significanceof layout or other aspects of material
organization to the utility of scientific publications.7Historians of
science are concerned with technical information and with the
6
Schmidt, 2006.
7 The
emphasis placed by historians of the book on publishing houses, the holdings
of libraries, printing technologies, and literary formats may be seen in the archives of the
listerv of the Society for the History of Authorship, Readership, and Publishing
(SHARP-L, http://www.sharpweb.org/archives.html).

PLANTIDENTIFICATIONMANUALS 77
disseminationof scientificknowledge,yet they have almost completely

overlooked the presentationof scientificinformationoutside of dia-
grams and figures.The scholarlyliteratureon the history of natural
history focuses on, for the most part, scientificperiodicals(especially
in the Victorian era), sociological themes, such as colonialism or
women's roles, biographies, or institutional histories.8 Those that
discuss classificationsof living things have emphasized naturalists'
purported philosophical concerns and nomenclaturalbattles rather
than the technicalitiesof identifyingspecimens.9Instead of regarding
paper-basedidentificationaids as a kind of scientificapparatusthat
directs naturalists'interactionswith specimens, it is customary for
historians and philosophersof science to examine arrangementsof
living things consideringthe extent to which each one approaches
what would now be considered a "natural" arrangement,that is,
keeping relatedplants together as much as possible, without interca-
lations of unrelated plants. The natural method itself is generally
consideredto be the precursorof what was recognized,after Darwin,
to be the phylogeneticgroupingof organisms.10The receivedview of
the history of botany hails John Ray, Michel Adanson, and Antoine-
Laurent de Jussieu in particularas fathers of the natural method
because all three prioritizedkeeping similar plants together. When
modern scholarsemphasizethe philosophicalapproachesthat helped
or hindered naturalistsin their quest for the natural method, the
production and popularity of deliberately"artificial"arrangements
look strange.They are consideredimpedimentsto progress,puzzling
anomalies, or both. In particular,several historiansof biology have
wonderedwhy Linnaeus'ssexual system remainedthe dominantplant
classificationin Britainafter Jussieu'snaturalmethodwas published.11
This outlook evidences a surprisinglyWhiggish standpoint, a view
8
E.g.: Voyages of discovery and other colonial enterprises: Drayton, 2000;
Schiebinger, 2004, and Parrish, 2006; Schiebinger, 2003, and Shteir, 1996; Periodicals:
Allen, 1996, and Cantor et al, 2004; Institutions: Spary, 2000; Kusukawa, 2000b; and
McOuat, 2001a, b; Biographies: Koerner, 1999 (also a history of socioeconomics at
the time); Stearn and Bridson, 1978; Dayrat, 2003; and Blunt, 1971. An excellent
exception remains Freedberg, 2002.
9
E.g. many excellent specialized works, such as Larson, 1967; Stevens, 1994; Daudin,
1926; Allen, 2001; Larson, 1971; Stearn, 1959; Stafleu, 1971, and general histories such
as Pavord, 2005, and Magnin-Gonze, 2004, Ogilvie, 2006; Givens, 2006, Arber, 1938,
Freedberg 2002 and Cooper, 2007 are exceptions, but they cover a time period that ends
before the period of relevance to this article.
10 Stevens
(1994) challenges this view, however, it is still common.
11
E.g. Allen, 1976; Mabberley, 1985.

78 SARA T. SCHARF
which historiansof sciencein other specialtieshave long been at pains

to avoid.12
As I will show, however,this attitudeis itself a productof the long
processof differentiationof identificationkeys and the naturalmethod
that took place over the 18th and early 19th centuries.During this
period, name-calling,straw man building,and the idealizationof pre-
decessorsthought to embody a progressivespirit were all quite pre-
valent.Artificialsystemsweredemonizedso that botanistscould define
the naturalmethod more sharplyas the most importantgoal of their
discipline.Along the way, the realhistoryof classificatoryarrangements
becamelost in the barrageof self-congratulatory,present-focusedhis-
tory. The majorityof botanistsbroughtup in this climateno longerpaid
attentionto the real benefitsthat artificialmethodsbroughtto science.
The scant attentionpaid by historiansof scienceto practicalfield bot-
any, which had the reputationof being a feminineactivityless "scien-
tific" than lab work, likely also contributedto this oversight.13As the
20th centurybotanistVernonHeywood pointed out, historiansof sys-
tematics,in their "preoccupationwith the developmentof the sciences
of botany and zoology [in the post-Linnaeanperiod]. . . divertedatten-
tion from the role of taxonomyas an informationscience"even though
"this change in the nature of taxonomy from a local or limited folk
communicationsystemand later a codifiedfolk taxonomyto a formal
system of informationscience marked a watershedin the history of
biology."14This watershedinvolved adaptingclassificationsof plants
from locally importantclassificationsbased on ecological, utilitarian
and morphologicalcriteriainto a globally understoodassociation of
standardizedterminology, nomenclature,storage of specimens and
layout. The resulting"toolbox"was capable of allowingfor the iden-
tificationof hundredsof thousandsof plantsboth knownand yet to be
discovered.The internationalcommunityof botanistsdevelopedthese
mechanismsiterativelythroughoutthe 18th century because of their
need to communicateclearly and over long distancesabout immense
numbers of plants. They learned from their predecessors,adapted
techniquesfrom other fields, tweaked those techniques,and outright
innovatedtheir way to creatingworkablesolutions to their communi-
cations and information management needs. Individual botanists
12
Explored also by Bornbusch, 1989.
13 On the 'feminization' of
botany, see Shteir 1996 and Stevens 1994, pp. 207, 215.
14 1985.
Heywood,

maintainedtechniquesthat helped them in their work, and discarded

those that did not servetheir purposes.15While some of the botanists'
desiderataremainedto be fulfilledat the end of this period - for in-
stance, accurate and up-to-date dictionariesof synonyms were still
unavailable16- the technologiesthey had been refiningfor centuries
certainlywere more effectiveat plant identificationby the 1830s, and
even by the 1780s,than they had at the beginningof the 18thcentury,in
John Ray's time.
Just as in plant physiology,anatomy,or any other aspectof botany,
people contributedto the developmentof their field in differentways
and to differentextents. Men who are now rememberedas able bota-
nists, such as WilliamJacksonHooker (1785-1865),often did not add
to the organizationof botanicalinformation,whereasauthorswho are
best forgottenfor theirbotanicalblunders,suchas JohnHill, sometimes
contributedimportantnew techniques.Otherbotanists,alreadywidely
recognizedfor theirresearch,suchas John Ray, Jean-Baptistede Monet
de Lamarck(1744^1829),Augustin-Pyramusde Candolle(1778-1841)
and JohnLindley(1799-1865),assumerolesof greaterimportancewhen
those who contributedto the developmentof informationmanagement
techniquesget theirdue. A numberof greatbotanicalteachers,such as
the François-Noël-AlexandreDubois (1752-1824),also gainrecognition
for the significant roles their pedagogical contributions played in
the organizationof botanicalinformation.A focus only on botanical
researchas it is now understoodwould have missed their valuable
contributionsto the science:techniquesfor organizinginformationin
books, techniquesthat made the developmentof field guidespossible.
Constraints on Publishing Illustrated Works
Technologiesof illustrationand fiscalconstraintsupon the publicationof

alsoplaya rolein thedevelopmentof identification
highqualityillustrations
manuals.Althoughidentification manualsfor livingthingsweredeveloped
15
See, for instance, te Heesen, 2005 for an account of how one German botanist
adapted bookkeeping methods for keeping track of specimens he collected on a trip
through Russia.The development of botanical classifications during the 18th century
shares many features with the development of open-source software today.
16 The most
comprehensive dictionaries of synonyms available at the time were
Caspar Bauhin's Pinax (published in 1623 and very much out of date by the 18th
century) and the various editions of Linnaeus's Species plantarum(1753, 1762, 1764, and
Willdenow's edition of 1797-1805). As much as Linnaeus and his successors tried, there
were always more plant names in circulation than they could include in each edition.

80 SARA T. SCHARF
duringthe 18thcentury,themajorityof studiesof theroleof illustrations in

naturalhistoryexamineherbalsand otherpre-18thcenturytexts,or 19th-
centurymaterial.17Many 18th-centurybooks about plants and animals
werelavishlyillustrated;howeverthese books wereless influentialin the
developmentof fieldguidesthanwereother,plainertexts.18
It is not thatbotanistsin the 18thcenturydislikedtheideaof illustrating
theirworks.Several,in fact,wroteincessantlyabouthow theywouldhave
loved to do so could they have affordedit.19Woodcutillustrations,the
leastexpensivekind,couldbeprintedon thesamepageas thetext.Butthey
wereoftentoo crudelycut to reproducethe nuancesof plantfeatureswell
enoughto satisfymost botanists.Copperplateengravingswereknownas
the best for illustratingdetails,but theywereverycostlyto produce,and
had to be printedon separatesheetsof paperfrom the text.20No matter
what the media,the cost of hiringskilledillustratorswas also a limiting
factorin producingillustratedworks.Botanistshad a choice.Theycould
illustratetheirbooks lavishlywith plant portraitsand sell them in small
numbersandat pricesonlythewealthycouldafford,ortheycouldproduce
worksillustratedwitha limitednumberof copperplateengravingsto show
themeaningsof technicalterms,suchas stamenandpistilarrangements or
variationsin leaf shape,and sell them in largenumbersto studentsand
otheramateursat a lowerprice.21Mostchosethelatterrouteof producing
instructionalbooks.Theyandtheirpublishersrejectedwoodcutsas a poor
compromisebetweenqualityand quantity.Books illustratedwith wood-
cuts would not sell:not eye-catchingenoughto be "coffee-tablebooks,"
theywouldnot be technicallyaccurateor inexpensiveenoughfor students.
18thcenturybotanicalwriterswereleft squeezingdescriptionsof plants
throughthe needle'seye of text. The arrangementof informationpre-
sentedin booksaboutlivingthingsthereforeassumedgreatimportancein
17
E.g. Kusukawa, 2000a, b; Redi et al., 2000; Secord, 2002; Allmon, 2007, and Ford,
2003.
18 As described
below, sparsely illustrated works about plants, such as Linnaeus's
many publications and Lamarck's Flore franpoise (1779) contributed far more to the
standardization of the format of identification manuals of both animals and plants than
other works.
19
E.g. John Ray, 1848, pp. 155-156. 336-337, 406-407; Raven, 1986; Richard and
Lindley, 1819; Aubert du Petit-Thouars (1811a). Linnaeus, however, was an exception
(Reeds, 2004).
20
Candolle, 1813; Griffiths, 2004.
21
E.g. Hill, 1770. Vegetable System. 2 ed. 25 vols. Vol. 1. London: "For the author."
or the Plants of the Coast of Coromandel (1795-1820), illustrated by Patrick Russell,
funded by Sir Joseph Banks Henrey, 1975, as compared with any of the works of John
Ray, Linnaeus, or Lamarck.

facilitating identification. A hierarchical arrangement of descriptions

allowed the features attributed to classes and orders of plants to apply
implicitlyto all species listed within them, reducingrepetition and allowing
the differences among plants to stand out in a minimum of words. Glos-
saries came to stand in for illustrations of plant parts. The arrangement
of words on the pages changed from sentences of expository prose to
point-form notes in different fonts, indented consistently and with plenty
of white space between them to guide the reader's eye quickly to the
information sought. This change can be seen by comparing the lay-
outs used in descriptions of the genus Valeriana by John Ray in 1682,
Tournefort in 1694, and Linnaeus in 1737 (Figures 1, 2). John Ray's entry
on the genus is embedded in a hierarchical arrangement meant to distin-
guish it from other genera that also have perfect flowers with naked single
seeds. A reader must proceed through Ray's hierarchicalarrangementto
see all the diagnostic features of this genus. The entry for Valerianais also
F i. lv. ! ss v 1" ï'-' i a ; v. ' : tc7

. • . .. ; .'. i- . . :. ..... i -.; ic
,: . ;>>;
' " '" ~ ,'.. v|
. .. . ... ,. . •• .a ;;..
Tab. XIV- i..,...«.:;V™:'^,,:,:.:.. .u,..

- -
Herbs flore perfetto,feminibusntdu : \
^
Jolttanisjmejl, adfingulosflora . ;l
i il; Ik
ftngulisjuntvelfeminibus
in futntnjj ciulibn ., ', . . . . a.k. P . . -
( ripta imifctntt J.'jfM, flcfculli . .. : ..; ...
.
\ cxijçuii vclut in umbrllj, ciuie tereti & iaas, , ; .. ,.,, .. <.
"S folil» pf r imcmlla blni> »cflitoj Valiriâ, k
''.-.: N • - i • i'-
cjTtntib;ti,(o'.\\i t
{FtPfJ
! • r ri L
s TtitnguUtu umtxIUurum in modum, florit»
TMALrcTRW». i ; -
\ niminofisrciniaibuiftriimi '
& ttmtttrr dtfftflii, giiuciî, flonbui W :•< . a .;! - :. -. m• -• . ' - ^ >-
jVmi :
"\ pjpilionjccoi arccdtotibuj, in fpiCis «»• . • •,
K •...:•'..,-.:-- •::...<..<.'"•
;;;..::.;•
/ FUMAR^.
gfflli, ' : :
C s*î*(ibmi\K pinnaih ( i ( . • .., \ •,,,.;,
<'Mirttinx, <rautibu» ^ ' ' '
( \ '.".';,'. !.. ." '.' ..' :' T
tSxd** flo(cu|t$ io fummirace plurib», .'"' '
s fûliiUOi i Liixowium vulttru \ ( ^ \
£ Ftliit tràrk Aiviift vifinii , tioftulist . -^ . . .
^ fcminibus in foliorum jIu fcifilib»; I . -. \ . . • .... ••.'•'., i'i.'i'..; .: .-A- ! --il. -.n-.A.: p, r .
humilior 8c rcpco^ -t Ciau% txttu . , . , , ; / :....•: ^ ;
• ...>'....:;•-•>. .\ , .v . .
mtrinmj. , ... .-\ .-.. .,]
; .,'.:.'.
7irr*/lrfJ.eiuk . -...-: . .-' ;. •:..;•.:, >..:\ t'... 'U;-;
i vie f?flt#m#,leu in bincn ritno* di*iricJ»i .... ;. i '). o^ViL-
N 8c utroûc ratno in jlioi bloo», &*• , ,••'. ;. :... i i >;-'.-.:.•.:: p .-.. -• .-.... .r.ir-
S Lactuc a tgalKJ, vaieriiutit. \ ^ > >• . ;.(,..(!
-
• StmfUd, rcftk xdurgeotc, tc! oon rjf!Kfe f l . . -,. . • . \
yA ramoj c Utcrlbci cmictcnrc, flor^ V.,;.::.. .- .-..;! i1.;.. toloOlîa::: C. M..- .•..:-.
-v.
f
bQI
Figure 1. Left: John Ray's entry for the genus Valeriana(Methodusplantarumnova, 1682,
p. 84; image courtesy of Gallica - Bibliothèque Nationale de France). Right:Tournefort's
descriptionof the genus Valeriana(Élémensde botanique,1694, p. 107; image © and cour-
tesy of the Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Pittsburgh,PA).

82 SARA T. SCHAR1
Figure 2. Linnaeus's description of the genus Valeriana {Genera plantarum, 1737,

p. 8). Image © Sara Scharf, courtesy of the Linnean Society of London.
difficultto spoton thepage.Conversely,Tournefort'sarrangementallows

a readerto seeall of the informationpertainingto valerianin one place.A
prose descriptionof the genus comes first, followedby a list of species.
Eachgenusis in its own sectionof the work,set apartwith capitalletters
indicatingthe genusnumberand an italicizedgenusname,both centered
above the firstparagraphof text. Linnaeus'sdescriptionof the genusis
even furtheritemized.He describeseach part of the flowerin a separate
paragraph,usinga minimumof words,andwithcriticalwordsitalicized.It
is much easier to find particulardiagnosticinformationin Linnaeus's
descriptionthanin Ray'sor Tournefort's- especiallyconsideringthat in
Linnaeus'swork, the partsof the flowerare describedfor each genusin
exactly the same order. Readersfamiliarwith his layout would know
preciselywhereto look.
One of the most interestingaspects of the developmentof identifi-
cationmanualsis that theirabilityto guidereadersto identifyspecimens

correctly depends on how the works are structured. This structure

includes the way the text is laid out on the page, the use of standardized
terminology, the order in which features of specimens are presented, the
order in which descriptions of species or of higher taxa are arranged,
and, often, systems of cross-references, including but not limited to
alphabetical indexes of names or technical terms.
Tripartite Format
Most 19th- to 21st-century identification manuals for plants and mush-

rooms, and most mid-19th century bird identificationmanuals, are com-
posed of threeparts.22The threepartscomplementeach other in the process
of identifying a specimen in hand. Typically the first part of these works
contains at least one identification key. Each key takes the user stepwise
through a number of paired descriptions.At each step the user chooses the
descriptionin the pair that suits the organism he or she wishes to identify.
After narrowingdown the possibilitiesthis way, the user will arriveat the
organism'sname and possibly a page referenceto the next section. The next
section contains descriptionsof organisms,arrangedeithertaxonomically-
accordingto how they are related- or according to how similarthey look.
These two possiblemodes of arrangementare roughlyequivalentin termsof
their utility for identification,since most related organisms look similarto
each other.23If the unidentifiedspecimenresemblessomethingfamiliar,it is
22
Although late 18th century and early 19th century bird identification books lacked
keys and indexes (e.g. Bewick, 1797, and Nuttall, 1832-1834) it was typical for late- 19th
centurybird guides to use this format, e.g. Coues, 1872. These works were meant to use with
dead specimens. I discuss more recent ornithological guides in the last section of this paper.
23 Of the
plant identification manuals available through the University of Toronto's
Earth Sciences library and published since 2000, eight out of a sample of 11 regional
floras and field guides were arranged in the tripartite format described and included
either black and white illustrations alone or black and white illustrations with some
colour photos (i.e. Dickinson et al. 2004; Cowrie et al., 2000; Hawthorne and Jongkind,
2006; Lôpez Gonzalez, 2002; Biedleman and Kozloff, 2003; Gentry and Vasquez, 1996;
Wunderlin and Hansen, 2003; Lahring, 2003). The three texts that were not arranged
in the tripartite manner were all fully illustrated with at least one colour photo per
taxon. One was arranged from lycopods to eudicots by plant family only (no keys)
(Aeschimann, 2004), one was arranged according to branching pattern (opposite or
alternate) coupled with leaf shape (simple or compound) (Weeks et al., 2005), and one,
containing fewer than fifty species, was arranged by genus and section (Christofides,
2001). Of a sample of five guides to orchids published since 1996, each by a different
author, all five exhibited the tripartite format: Brown and Folsom, 2006; Cribb and
Whister, 1996; Chapman, 1997; Comber, 2001; and Bruce-Grey Plant Committee, Owen
Sound Field Naturalists, 1997.

84 SARA T. SCHARF
Introductory AnalyticalA'artificial" Descriptive/"natural" Glossaryor glossaries Alphabetical

matter section section (optional) index(es)
• identification • descriptionsof • delinitions and/or • names of
kcy(s) for the organismsgrouped explanationsof specimens cross-
determinationof taxonomically technicalterms referencedto other
specimens' names ("naturalmethod")or sections of book
by overall resemblance
• may include keys • may be cross- • may include
within groups referencedto other technicalterms,
sections of book authors'names,
etc.
• may be illustrated • may be illustrated • ma\ be illustrated
Figure 3. Structure of a typical post- 1803 botanical field guide. The analytical and
descriptive sections, and an alphabetical index, are always present and tightly inte-
grated in this genre.
usuallyfasterto find its descriptionby going directlyto the descriptionof the

familiar-lookingorganism and searching there for an entry matching the
specimen than it is to identify the specimen using the identification key.
Finally but not to be missed, thereis an alphabeticalindex. The index directs
users who already know the names of their specimens to the pages in the
second section where the specimens are more fully described. Figure 3
depicts a schematizedbreakdown of the parts of an identificationmanual.
Figure 4 shows how plant names, authorities'names, synonyms, plant part
descriptions,and notes arelaid out on individualpages withinthe descriptive
sections of F.-N.-A. Dubois' flora of Orléans,the firstpublishedwork to be
arrangedin this way.
Identification manuals structured in this way therefore offer three
separate ways to get at information about a specimen: through a step-
wise tour of particular features, by general impression or gestalt (with
reference to exemplars in mind), or by name. They are sophisticated
processes, processes we now would categorize as types of information
technology. They were not invented overnight.
Development of Identification Manuals
The genre of identification manuals came about to fill a niche in the

market for books about nature during the 18th century. Several factors
came together to create this niche. One was the popularity of botany as
a socially acceptable and economically beneficial activity throughout all
sectors of the population in Enlightenment Europe, including both
members of the artisan class and women.24 The influx and diffusion of
24
Secord, 1996; Koerner, 1995.

I. Ordre. T.cs A>»7CfV».' 4*3

!
C,ilr planlo eM commune ri.irn l<< champ* un peu ; 4*6 XI. CI. P!. Dicot. Cor. mon. /p/^me : Etam. Hires.
fleurit en prairial <l m,.,sulor.
ri(frT.-.ix.¥W<- ; / Fleuri dioïcpies : tiges haute* de dit ù douze pouo*.
So* Itmlle» «-t »e» fleurs M<nicordial,-» , vulnéraires
ilexi.ncur H & lin- «*•
f,\ud..riu<jues. On U ordonne A.)
1 Fleurs bisnu«{l«s : lig-s hautes de deux ou trois
li-rirur pmir I..-»maladies dc I* peau. Choin. torn. I,
I pied». 94X
( Semence» comprimée*. 944.
nouvelle Encycl. Scabiosa
9\f. ScAii*r«i BU 1OIS, B. Semonces couronnée» par six dcnf«. 94.».
9Uvtu-j. Lin. *
Scinencea couroon«ret par lr»i« il.-rtt».94^.
Oil- pl»ntr a «'lé nbwv.V dan» un fo«é de 1> com-
942. VAl.tmAKt DlOJQVi, iiouv. Enrj el. l-'j/rri.tftta
rn.nd.ri.- <!<•Noi-nv. Kile Henri»en Ihormidoc. ( Minus- dniica. lin.
em J • l.i bihiiolhi'-qu» publique. ) CeUr pl.<Dl«croit djn« le» endroit» .iqii.li'|ii'\ <t miré-
940. Scabhisi stccisi . nouvelle Fnryrl. ScaHflta 't «l.'in
i cajçeux , iK>lamnïent anprè* du poiî» de S.','tm.
,...../?. Lin nt. AHlg. A/o« rf« rfirtfc/r1, ou herbe de •
le» pré» qui aroi<incnt le n»ivM>au qui pn%*-»"ii« I ;>•.•:!
.f-. J ,.-;'..
«le Bionne. Elle fleurit rn llor.-.l. L-* tK-ur»nùk-i v.nl
Gu.- pbnle e«l commune «!...,< I-« hoi, el !«•* prct
beaucoup phn grande* que le« Icnicllt».
avoir élé mordu» 94.I. VALEUlArK OFIICIKALI, I.OUV.EliC.el. /'.rV-
pure quo m racine paroit toujour» n.jw.» oflcnwlis. lin.
OU full[«<-«. On trouve cette plante aln>nd.imnwnt <l.\rn!» jiri-nii"?
Elle .-.lr< moines propriélM que la *ci»bicuusdes rliamps. de Sl.-Me»mia : Hic croit austi Jaiu Ut bou et les pi '-%
On on f-il àc* gjrpanimi^ qui »<»nleseclK-nl* pour guérir kumkl«S. Elle fleurit ea prairial.
le, in.'Umm.tion» du juier. Chom. torn. 1 , p»g. 3^4- Sa racine eat eordi»le, Midurifiqnr, apéririve. r.'pli.T-
«>4i. ScAinviicoi-oiUAiaï, douv. Encycl. Scabiosa
Tiqtie et hyttcVique. On doit la cueillir au priuteim et
cr!:.,n!.,i,,.,. Lin. ]a faire sécher i l'ombre. Chôme! .-mure V«-nètri- v r\i
C-iic plant.- t.si rommunr lo l™c dw rhemins dani avec Micce»|>our guenr de» 1piIcptiques. Clv>m. i>:i«. I .
1m cmlroii» «.blonneiK. KHe flc.nl en thermidor.
I** **&
On cultive dau» le» jardin». *»i» le n»m de tcabieuse , 944- VALXKIajrS MkC.nt nOOCtrrt , nivelle Kiiryrf.
1<-r.:/i •.! <iiropurpurcj, originaire do Inde» : U coulent Jsilrriana locutêa oJUcria. lin. Vulg. Âl-ictie , bourse te,
.!. r.ilc ili-iir varie. taiade rerte.
CCIAMII. Vaujiasi, (U) nouvelle Encycl, Cette plante c-it rommnnc dan» lef vi^ne*. EH (!-iirit
r.,j.i.Km.sj. J-m. et Un. v* jjcrniinal. Lm auteur» regardent ordinairement l(-«deux
A. Feuilles atleci : lige non interrompu*dans t» plante» suivantes comme drs varirlés de cel'e-ci ; man
d.rer'.^n. cites en diffèrent tellement par leur port et par Unir»
D. Feuillet simpUi : liges une ou ptufieur* Joii W>
graine* que j'ai cru devoir en fiirc nul.int d'i>»pères
Îm jaiebe a*, mange en taladu : elle e*t Tort rnlfrj»-
•LuMote el un peu laiaùvc. Chom. «on».Ill , pag. x3a.
Figure 4. Dubois' descriptions of the species of Valeriana {Méthode éprouvée, 1803,

pp. 425^26). He provides a short key to the species even within the ''natural meth-
od" section of his work. Image © the Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation,
Pittsburgh, PA.
curious exotic plants, such as the banana, further fuelled botany's

appeal.25Establishedbotanistsalso hoped to recruitand cultivatenew
correspondentsand plant collectorswho could in turncontributeto the
developing science. For instance, as one French naturalistwrote in
1773, it is importantto teach botany properly,since even "the most
inexperienced[botanist]can enrichthe sciencewith a new species,which
could not happen if he were to study Botany without the help of
methods."26Finally,the increasein the publicationof texts purporting
to make botany easy to learn by self-instructionalso testifies to a
25 Muller-
Wille, 2007b.
26
Bucquet, 1773, 356 "[L]e plus novice peut enrichir la science d'une nouvelle espèce;
ce qui ne pourroit arriver si on étudioit la Botanique sans le secours des méthodes."
These sentiments echo Linnaeus's 1737 comment that the difference between an
uneducated peasant or an animal and a botanist is that a botanist is equipped to
communicate his knowledge of plants to others (Linnaeus, 1737, aphorism 210, cited in
Steam, 1959).

86 SARA T. SCHARF
growing demand for botanical education toward the end of the 18th
century.27
Meanwhile,the numberof plant speciesdescribedby botanistsgrew
from around 7,000 in 1737 (i.e. Linnaeus'sfirst edition of Genera
Plantarumand its supplements)to almost 100,000 by 1837.28The
number of plant species estimated to exist in the world during this
period was usually between two and ten times higher at any given
time.29Botanistsknew early on that these numbersof specieswere far
beyondwhat the humanmind was equippedto handle.They began to
deviseways to organizethis informationand to shareit using the most
readily available and most easily disseminated form of "artificial
memory"at their disposal,that is, words writtenon paper.30
"Natural" and "Artificial" Arrangements
Books about plants,however,could not be mere lists of plant names-

particularlywhen botanists felt overwhelmedby the thousands of
undescribedplants that were coming to their attention. Although a
numberof polyglot dictionariesof plant names had been publishedin
the 16th century in attempts to address the growing number of
27 These books include:
Withering, 1776;Bergeret, [Jean-Pierre].1783-1784; Rousseau,
1983; and Saunders, 1792.
28 The estimate of how
many species Linnaeus described as of then is from Adanson,
1966. In 1694, John Ray in his Methodus Plantarumand Joseph Pitton de Tournefort in
his Isagoge were said to have described around 18,000 kinds of plants each (Boerhaave,
1719), but later authors considered many of these plant kinds to be varieties rather than
species.
29
Scharf, 2007. I compiled data from primary sources into graphs showing natural-
ists' estimates of how many plant species had been described (82 data points for 46
different years between 1596 and 1840), and how many plant species they thought must
exist on earth (22 data points for 18 different years between 1691 and 1849), resulting in
the most comprehensive comparison of species diversity estimates yet published. Both
the number of plant species described by different authors and the number of plant
species naturalists thought existed show a strong exponential growth trend during this
period.
30 In the
early 17th century, both René Descartes and Francis Bacon described the
written word as a useful form of "artificial memory," particularly given the sheer
amount of knowledge about the natural world that was in the process of being dis-
covered (Rossi, 2000, pp. 15, 23, 44, 124; in particular, Bacon (Works, Vol. I, p. 647),
cited by Rossi, p. 106). After that time it was taken as a given among natural philos-
ophers, including botanists, that writing things down was an acceptable way of pre-
serving information for later use. The earlier received view had been that the need to
write notes to oneself was an indication of lax mental habits.

synonyms,there is no obvious place where entrieson unnamedplants

belong in alphabeticallists.31Findingplaces for such plants becamea
pressingproblemin botany at the end of the 17thcentury.By the start
of the 18th century, botanists were already familiar with the short-
comings of alphabeticalarrangements,no matter how many cross-
referencesto synonymsthey contained.
A numberof botanistsat the turn of the 18thcenturyreckonedthat
whatever method they were to choose would have to be based on
somethingless fleetingthan the name bestowed on a plant by a par-
ticulargroup of people. It would have to be based on somethingin the
plants themselves,and it would have to be able to accommodatehow-
ever many plants remainedto be discoveredon Earth.32What better
way to representall of nature'sglory in the most naturalway possible,
in the way plants seemedto group themselves?
The 17th century naturalists John Ray and Joseph Pitton de
Tournefort (1656-1708) pioneered this "natural" way of grouping
plants accordingto their similarities.Anyone could recognizethat cer-
tain plants were very similarand "belonged"together. For instance,
peas and beanslook similar,as do appletreesand peartrees.Grouping
plants in this way came to be known as the "naturalmethod" or
"naturalsystem."With this way of proceeding,someonewho wishedto
identifya specimen,and who was familiarwith other plants similarto
the specimen,could turn to the sectionof the book wherethose similar
plants were described,using the alphabeticalindex to find one such
familiar plant if necessary, then search nearby in the text for a
descriptionmatchingthe plant at hand. Eighteenth-centurybotanists
found that this techniqueworksreliablyfor those alreadyfamiliarwith
a large enough selection of plants to be able to compare unknown
specimensto known exemplars,but that novice botanists unfamiliar
with plant diversitylackedthe knowledgeto succeedwith it.33Botanists
soon becameawarethat the most "natural"method of plant arrange-
ment they had discoveredwas not the most naturalto the minds of the
uninitiated.
Another method of arrangingplants in books also emerged at
the turn of the 18th century. It relied less heavily on background
31
Slaughter, 1982, p. 56.
32 Botanists shared this interest in
building classifications on the basis of inherent
features of the items being classified with the philosophical language planners of the
17th century. In many cases, botanists even participated in making universal or
philosophical language schemes themselves, as described in Lewis, 2007; Maat, 2004;
Slaughter, 1982; Stearn, 1986; Trelease et al., 1886; and Turner, 1978.
33
E.g. Jussieu, 1789, lvi cited in Stevens, 1994, p. 1376; MacKay, 1836.

88 SARA T. SCHARF
informationthan did the naturalmethod.Instead,it took a step-by-step

approachto examiningthe featuresof plants. Books arrangedthis way
presentedreaderswith pairs or small sets of descriptivephrases.A user
would choose the descriptionthat best appliedto the specimenat hand,
then follow the associatedinstructionsabout whichdescriptionsto read
next. In this way, users could narrowdown the possibilitiesapplicable
to their specimensby choosing appropriatedescriptionafter appropri-
ate description,until they reached the specimen'sname. In the 20th
century,this approachbecameknown as "keyingout" a specimen,and
the tool involved came to be called an "identificationkey" or just a
"key."There was no one term used for keys in the 18th century.For
instance,John Hill calledhis an "artificialmethod,or index of plants,"
John Stuart,the Earl of Bute referredto his as "botanicaltables,"and
Lamarckdescribedhis as a "méthodeanalytique"(analyticalmethod).34
Identificationkeys help both beginnersand expertsto identifyplants.
Neverthelessthey have many disadvantages,includingthe requirement
that users understanda wealth of technicalterms for plant parts, and
examinethose parts in an orderdeterminedby the key's authorrather
than according to users' preferences. Eighteenth-centurybotanists
acknowledgedthese problems,but their greatestcomplaintabout keys
was that identificationmanuals using them often had similar plants
describedon differentpages, and sometimeseven in differentchapters.
John Ray and Joseph Tournefort'sclassificationsof plants both
involvedkeylikestructuresas well as "natural"groupingsof plants. In
both cases, a readerwould find a plant by workingthrougha hierarchy
of charactersin a stepwise fashion, just as in a modern key. Ray's
Historiaplantarumwas even arrangedwith the descriptionsin mostly
dichotomouscouplets.35As well, the plants in both systemswere gen-
erally clustered according to how similar they were overall. Ray's
classificationwas widely recognizedto be more "natural"since he was
particularlygood at clusteringsimilarplants, while the classification
Tournefortused in his Élemensde botaniquewas seen as easierto use,
sincehe emphasizeddifferentialfeaturesmorethan Ray did.36However,
both Ray's and Tournefort'ssystemscontainedodd clustersof plants
for whichthey werecriticized.Both also had trickypoints that confused
their followers. Eighteenth-centurybotanists thought they could do
better.
34
Hill, 1770, p. 45; Lamarck, 1779; Stuart, 1787.
35
Ray, 1686-1704 - see also Figure 1 for the same format in Ray's earlier work, the
Methodus plantarum nova.
36
Tournefort, 1694, E.g. Boerhaave, pp. 130-131; Milne, 1770.

At the beginningof the 18thcentury,the problemswith both Ray's

and Tournefort'ssystemswerenot seen to stem from theirapproachto
organizingplants,but ratherfrom theirexecution.Ray and Tournefort
had pursuedarrangementsof plants they understoodto be both the
most naturaland the easiest to use. In principlethis was possible for
those who sharedthe 18th centurybelief that man, made rationalin
God's image,was uniquelypositioned- primed,in fact - to understand
His plan for the universe.37At the same time, and even among some
naturaltheologiansin the 19thcentury,many naturalistsbelievedthat
God had even put marks on his creationsto indicateto mankindthe
place of each in nature.Tournefort,for instance,explainedthat, "The
Creatorof all things,who gave us the facultyof givingnamesto plants,
places in the plants themselvessignifyingmarksfrom which should be
sought that similarityrequiredof species of the same genus. We can
neitherchangethese marksnor renounceexaminingand using them, if
we wouldeliminateerror."38He also wrotethat the charactersof genera
should"be perceptibleand easy to notice,withoutrequiringthe use of a
microscopeto find them."39And Linnaeuslater wrote that, since the
world is such a wonderfulplace, and God has
placedin it Man, the chiefand most perfectof all his works,who is
alone capableof duly consideringthe wonderfuloeconomyof the
whole;it follows, that Man is madefor the purposeof studyingthe
Creator'sworks,that he may observein themthe evidentmarksof
divinewisdom.40
As such, there was a widespreadbelief that the true order of nature
would be possiblefor the humanmind to grasp.The best approachto
study nature was thereforethrough a careful examinationof its pro-
ductions, arranged so as to illustrate their relationships.The most
natural arrangementof living things would be appropriatefor every
purpose,inherentlyeasy both to understandand to use. If people were
37 Of
course, this is a gross generalisation: different naturalists subscribed to the
various premises I outline to various, sometimes only limited, degrees. Although the
true thoughts coming from God idea was made popular by Descartes, many naturalists,
particularly in France, believed that nature was far too vast and complex to ever be
understood other than at a superficial level (e.g. Buffon, 1749, Vol. 2, 12). Nevertheless,
the views I describe were widespread and influential even upon those who purported not
to subscribe to them - very few naturalists were philosophically consistent.
38 Scott Atran noticed this
widespread belief as well. Tournefort, Institutiones rei
herbariae, 3rd ed, Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1719, p. 54, as cited in Atran, 1990, 166.
39
Tournefort, 1694, pp. 13-14, cited Daudin 32.
40
Linnaeus, 1754.

90 SARA T. SCHARF
to fail to develop an all-encompassingyet philosophically sound

classification,it would be due to laziness,mental limitationsor igno-
rance about lesser-knownparts of the world. As the French botanist
Louis-Marie-Aubertdu Petit-Thouars(1758-1831) put it, "Nature is
simple;its progressionmust consequentlyalso be so."41Man'sdesireto
forcenaturalproductionsinto groupsat his conveniencewas misguided.
Care and attentionto detail were what were neededto put plants and
animalsin their properplaces.
It is largelyfor this reasonthat most naturalistsdid not see the utility
of using separatetechniquesto describeorganisms'relationshipsand to
identifythem. Earlysystemsand methods,such as Ray's Methodusand
Linnaeus'sexual system of plants, were expectedto accomplishboth
ends.42In fact, for many decades,most naturalistsused methods that
had both artificialand naturalcomponentsbecausethey assumedthat
the naturaland artificialaspectsof these arrangementswouldworkwell
together and bring them the best of both worlds: a clear-cutway to
identifyplants and, simultaneously,the clusteringof similarplantsinto
naturalgroupswithout the interpolationof any dissimilarplants. This
situationheld even though many of the leadingnaturalistsof the late
18thcenturysaw that naturalgroupsdid not necessarilyexhibitfeatures
that allowed them to be delimitedsharplyor identifiedeasily. Never-
theless, these naturalistsmaintained that doing so was possible in
principle.43
Botanistsonly very rarelyexpressedthese views succinctly,though
this viewpoint is evident in the way that they criticizedeach other's
classificationschemes.Criticismusuallyrevolvedaroundhow well each
schemekept similarplants together- even if the schemeshad not been
constructedwith this end in mind.44Arrangementsof plants were
expectedto be easy to use, simple in design, easy to remember,com-
prehensive,and reflectiveof plants' relationships,all at once. Natural-
ists who triedto make plant identificationschemesmeetingall of these
criteriaran into problems;thereis no way to optimizeeveryaspectof a
classificationsimultaneously.
41 du
Petit-Thouars, 1811a, p. 32.
42
Although Linnaeus stated that his sexual system was artificial, it was held in high
esteem partially because it maintained many natural groups. I discuss this issue in depth
later on.
43 Linnaeus was an
exception; he wrote that artificial systems do not properly
accommodate natural genera (Muller-Wille and Reeds, 2007).
44
McMahon, 2002, p. 11.

One indication that 18th century botanists believed that more

"natural"schemes should be inherentlyeasier to use was that most
of them emphasized the simplicity or elegance of the theories by
which they justifiedtheir choice of characters,ratherthan the ease of
use of the schemesthemselves.Ease of use was assumedto go along
with cutting-edgeand robust theories. So was the maintenanceof
naturalgroups. There was no need to prioritizeease of use in and of
itself, when ease of use was seen to follow from sophisticatedinter-
pretations of nature's workings that kept natural groups together.
When botanists criticized their rivals' schemes for failing to keep
related organisms together, they were expressing their belief that
sound scientific theories, as embodied by classification schemes,
should be congruentwith nature.45And even if the classificationsin
question were more heavily slanted towards organizinginformation
than explaining patterns in nature, botanists still expected natural
groups to be accommodatedas smoothly as possible - that is, that
related organisms should be grouped together in books, while dis-
similar ones should be separated from each other. Features of
schemesthat interferedwith quick and easy identificationwere often
excusedand retainedif they kept naturalgroups together."A feeling
persisted,"Peter Stevens wrote, "that taxonomic groups had to be
readily recognizable."46When they were not easily recognizable,
botanists blamed each other for failing to understandnature well
enough.
Only by the middle of the 18th centurydid the acknowledgement
that it would be helpful to use differenttechniques for identifying
plants and for portrayingtheir interrelatednessbegin to spreadamong
botanists. An additionalquartercenturypassed before the stigma of
prioritizingease of identificationin botanical texts decreasedappre-
ciably. The two botanists who contributedthe most to these break-
throughs were the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) and
the French botanist Jean-Baptistede Monet de Lamarck (1744-
1829).47
45
E.g. Linnaeus'sdreamof a naturalsystemof plants that would one day be per-
fected.Linnaeus,2003, section77, and also Lindley,1829,p. 80.
Stevens,1994,pp. 228-229 - he providessome referencestoo.
Lamarck,thoughnow most famousfor his transformatistwritings,was a botanist
first and foremostfrom the 1770s until his appointmentto the chair of Zoology of
Insects,Worms and MicroscopicAnimals at the Paris MuséumNational d'Histoire
Naturellein August 1790(Dayrat,2003, p. 94).

92 SARA T. SCHARF
Separation of Identifying Specimens from Indicating Plant Relatedness
Linnaeusis best known today for popularizingbinomialnomenclature,

but in the 18thcentury,his fame restedequallyon his sexualsystemof
plants.Introducedin his Systernanaturaeof 1735,this systemput plants
into 24 classes based on the numbersand positions of their stamens
(male sexual structures),and into orders based on the numbersand
positions of their pistils (female sexual structures).48
Using the sexual
system as an identification key requiredonly four steps: counting the
stamensto find the class, countingthe pistils to find the order,reading
the genericdescriptionswithinthe orderto find the genus, and reading
the speciesdescriptionswithinthe genusto namethe species- far fewer
steps than either Ray's or Tournefort'smethods required.The sexual
systemwas in fact easierto use for plant identificationthan both Ray's
and Tournefort'smethods.It also kept togetherseveralnaturalgroups
of plants,suchas, for instance,the mustardfamily(crucifers,in the class
Didynamia),the daisy family (composites,in the class Syngenesia),the
orchids(in the class Gynandria)and the palms(in theirown appendix).
The sexualsystemwas both controversialand popular.It becamethe
de facto standardin botanythroughoutEurope,in spite of vocal critics
pointingout that many groupsof plants that Linnaeusformedwerein
contraventionof his system'srules.49These problemswith the sexual
systemhighlightthe problemsthat all botanistsfacedwhenthey triedto
balancetechniquesthat prioritizeeasy plantidentification,suchas keys,
with techniquesthat prioritizekeepingsimilarplants together,such as
the naturalmethod.
As noted, Linnaeus'ssexual systemwas a simplerand easierway to
identifyplantsthan eitherRay's or Tournefort'smethods.The rulesfor
puttingplantsin theclassesandordersof the sexualsystemweresimpleto
explainand learn.However,thesesimplerulesweredid not alwaysapply
well to the naturalgroups of plants they were meant to pigeonhole.50
Linnaeuswas dedicated,above all, to preservingnatural species and
generain hisclassification.He wasconvincedthatboth speciesandgenera
have real existencesin nature.For him, it was crucialto keep related
speciestogetherin naturalgenera,at any cost.51Groundingthe concepts
48
Linnaeus, 1735. This is a simplified explanation of how the sexual system works, as
some of the classes and orders are based on the positions and/or relative sizes of stamens
and pistils. Muller-Wille, 2007a, provides a detailed account of how it worked.
49
E.g. Medikus, cited in Stafleu 1971, p. 261, and Lamarck 1779, p. xviii.
™
Muller-Wille, 2007a.
51
E.g. Linnaeus 1751 (2003), p. 114, section 159.

of speciesand genusin the natureof plantsthemselvesguaranteedthat

they would remainthe same in any arrangementof plants, not just in
Linnaeus's own preferredclassificationschemes.Linnaeusactedon these
beliefsby makingsurethatthespeciesmakingup a givennaturalgenusare
all locatedin the sameplacein a givenbotanicaltext.
In certain circumstances,however, related plants have different
numbersof stamensor pistils.If the sexualsystemwerestrictlyapplied,
these plants would be placed in differentclasses (if they had different
numbersof stamens)or orders(if they had differentnumbersof pistils).
However,Linnaeuswas moreconcernedwith preservingnaturalgenera
than he was with keepinghis sexual systemconsistent.The resultwas
that readersunfamiliarwith those anomalousplantswould look in the
ordersor classes with the right numbersof pistils or stamensand not
find the informationthey wantedbecausethe plants'descriptionswere
printedelsewhere.One of the most problematicgenerain this respect
was Valeriana,valerian.The species Linnaeushad describedfirst had
three stamens, so he assignedit to the class Triandria.He added all
subsequent species of Valerianahe described to Triandriaas well,
despite their differencesin stamen number. For instance, Valeriana
rubrahas only one stamen,and shouldthereforebe locatedin the class
Monandria,but Linnaeusinsteadplacedit in Triandriawith its three-
stamenedrelatives,as shownin Figure5. If the sexualsystemwereto be
followed strictly,admittingonly plants with the right numbersof sta-
mens and pistils to the classes and orders, the differentspecies of
Valerianawould have to be dividedamong differentordersand classes.
As Colin Milne wrote about Valeriana,
This genus affordsone of the strongestobjectionsto the Linnaean
method of arrangement,and distributionof the genera. No less
than six differentspeciespertainto other classes [thanTriandria].
The diversitytoo that obtainsin the otherparts of fructificationis
so remarkable,that it is not possibleto give a genericaldescription
that shall include every species. Such is the inconvenienceof
adoptingnaturalgenerain an artificialmethod.52
Linnaeuswas well aware of the problemsthat the mismatchbetween
artificialclasses and ordersand naturalspecies and generacaused for
botanistsusing the sexualsystemto identifyplants.He clearlyvaluedit
mostly as a time-testeddiagnostictool-cum-plantinformationreposi-
tory, for, despite continuallyupdatingthe informationin it, he never
tried to reformit. Instead, startingin his Classesplantarumof 1738,
52
Milne, 1771, p. 254.

94 SARA T. SCHARF
Figure 5. Linnaeus's description of each of the species in the genus Valeriana. Each
species is described succinctly in its own section, with its trivial name in italics in the
margin, and each synonym on a separate line. The places of growth are described in
very few words and the duration of the plant (perennial, biennial, annual) is indi-
cated with symbols (Species plantarum 1753, p. 31). Linnaeus's layout of plant
descriptions owes much to Tournefort's. N.B. that, even though the genus Valeriana
is in the Class Triandria, the first three species listed (V. rubra, V. calcitrope and
V. cornucopiae - indicated with arrows) have one, one and two stamens per flower,
respectively. Image © Sara Scharf, courtesy of the Linnean Society of London.
Linnaeuspublisheda list of what he called "fragmentsof the natural

ordersof plants,"in whichhe listedplantsaccordingto how he thought
they were related to each other.53He wrote that he knew his sexual
systemwas artificial,but he also acknowledgedit was easierto use and
understandthan the naturalmethod - a method so complex it might
neverbe fully understood.This complexitymeantthat therewas a need
for somethingsimplerto guide people throughthe vegetablekingdom.
53
Linnaeus, 1738, modified and expanded in Philosophiabotanica (1751. Stockholmiae:
Godofr. Kiesewetter), and, also, perhaps most famously, in the 6th edition of Genera
plantarum(Holmiae: Laurentii Salvii).

Linnaeussaw that artificialand naturalordersof plantsthereforeserve

differentpurposes:"Naturalorders,"he wrote,"areusefulfor gettingto
know the nature of plants; artificialones for telling differentplants
apart."54Linnaeussaw the sexual systemas a necessarystopgap until
that time in the futurewhen the trulynaturalgroupingsof plantscould
be determinedto perfection.55 However,he himselfneverdeviseda way
to avoid the problemsinherentin eitherkind of classification.Whenhe
had to choose betweenmaintainingnaturalgroupsof plants or making
changes to the sexual system, he compromisedby keeping natural
generatogetherat the expenseof the internalconsistencyof the sexual
systemand, hence, its ease of use.
The majorityof botanistsin the middleof the 18thcenturyheld a less
nuancedview of naturaland artificialschemesthan did Linnaeus.They
saw thesetwo kindsof arrangementsas two differentways to do exactly
the same thing: identifyplants. The naturalmethod had better philo-
sophical credentials,while artificialclassificationshad more obvious
empiricalutility.Therewas little to no awarenessthat the two kinds of
arrangementwork most effectivelyin differentcontexts. Instead,most
botanists assumedthat either natural or artificialmethods had to be
betterfor plant identificationin any situation.Botanistswere expected
to declaretheir allegianceto either natural or artificialsystems. One
could be a partisan of Linnaeus'ssexual system, or of Tournefort's
method, or of Ray's method, or of somebodyelse's arrangement.One
did not pick and choose as one pleased;each botanistwas expectedto
think hard,choose a path based on its merits,and then stick with it to
the exclusionof all others.
Lamarck,however,was not content to choose only one method or
system.He recognizedthat "natural"and "artificial"classificationsbest
served differentpurposes.And they would best serve their respective
purposes if "natural"classificationswere made as true to nature as
possible,while artificialones weremadeas easy to use to identifyplants
as possible.Lamarck'sfirst publication,the one that securedhis repu-
tation and the patronageof George Louis Leclerc,Comte de Buffon
(1707-1788),was calledthe Florefrançoise.Publishedin 1779,the Flore
containeddescriptionsof around4,000 speciesof plants.It was laid out
as a giant dichotomouskey: it made no pretenseto representplants'
relationships.As shown in Figure6, Lamarckhad not only made his
54 "Ordinesnaturalesvalentde natura
plantarum.Artificialesin diagnosiplantarum,"
Generaplantarum,6th edition (1764),undersection 10 in the introductionto the part
called Fragmenta methodi naturalis.
55
Linnaeus, 1751, section 77.

96 SARA T. SCHARF
[S*]
Sect. IIF.
'De Htrbis.
HcrbarumTabulagcncralis. MI-THODEANALYTlQUr.
Htrbtfuntyd
(cl fc (cm
( lm?trf<a<, quarpjftiboipr*cipol$, flore
\ ne, fed prfcipuc femine c«rcoc, aur fclcetn citai
) tridentur, jdfôqve onum tubere (pooHùtum,t n •. i N- -• •
A
.alta
/ptrjuiiêrn* t|u» flore ft fcmifc doaJoturfant
^
v femlne. H* »il font femine /.-.., ,:,.•. |

i-.-.-.- ;.,.'.;.:-..
/ MUttuTmo 8c nadrt oculit iiv onfpiaw, ut cirai • •

i>- .= ' F :.-• ..:.•.:!•
«•>: '• «
\ pJcriTjuc «rwe invriwuiu MmroJ'copionoà k»

! i ,! .:
- • •'' '
; '
'
fle'iln
..•••'•'
^ nu-lii nignl etÎ4m nominu Botanidi

|
». T*b. II.» Ill

) h*t>if* fini, ut ritix%Admiir**.
C ^j/*rf, qujrnl lune irjlikkmiMlibui
"*<*•, iior cli,qux femme fit* hini» folth c t«.
ri r xeuni, aucfiltrm fcmtnc funr ^>a^V *
»c I lunt flore
r ~ft>jt(lo feu Haminco, peMlii feu foira
) ilhi fueanljut cobritt» carence : v. T*b.
< iv.v.vr.
Jpt>)t{U, feu peftlodejur braâearo, Hf
\ vclfunt eodem
feu ex pturibus fiofculmg^-
f. #«Bp#jÇr#, ^ .."7": [/:- :
g«ro, tcJ
ÇrUnihlû* naruri pleoo , liflefcc*
te», r. Tab. VU.
\
.aà./7; ..:;
r,^, I--;......:..
I tlftndu («*
\ IJ
Figure 6. On the left, page 56 of John Ray's Methodus planlarum nova (1682), the
beginning of his key to non-woody plants (image courtesy of Gallica - Bibliothèque
Nationale de France). On the right, the first page of Lamarck's "Méthode analy-
tique," or key to the flowering plants (Flore françoise, 1779, v. 2, p. 2; image © and
courtesy of the Bibliothèque Centrale, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris).
key extremelyconsistent in content, he had also produced a simple

layoutfar easierto navigatethan, for instance,John Ray'sdichotomous
arrangementin his Methodusplantarumnova (1682). Although both
Ray and Lamarckused curly bracketsto set off comparisonsin their
hierarchicalarrangements,Ray's bracketsextend for pages, leadingto
confusionabout whereeach one beginsand ends, while Lamarckclearly
indicatesthe natureof each comparisonand whereto look next, all on
one page. In addition,while Ray mentionsthe plant featurehe discusses
only at the beginningof a comparison,Lamarckreiteratesit so that
readersdo not lose sight of the subjectof the comparison.Unlike Ray,
Lamarckensures that all his comparisonnumbers,descriptions,and
page referencesline up verticallyon the page, enablingreadersto find
what they want at a glance.

These features made the Flore remarkablyeasy to use for plant

identification,even for beginners.It becamevery popular.Unlike what
Linnaeushad done with the sexual system, Lamarckdid not think it
helpful to allow either natural or artificialarrangementsof plants to
accumulateexceptionsto their own rules. In orderto keep his classifi-
cationconsistent,Lamarcksacrificedprintingthe descriptionsof related
speciestogetherin the sameplacein his text. Users of his book could see
when plantswerein the same genusbecausethey would sharea generic
name.Theycould find the other speciesin the samegenusby looking at
the book's index. This is how Lamarckwas able to surpassthe mental
obstacle that had blocked Linnaeus. Beginnersalso appreciatedthat
Lamarckhad writtenhis Flore in French,the languageof the people,
and not in Latin, the languageof the elite and educatedclasses. The
1,200copies printedsold out quickly.It was reprintedafterthe French
Revolution,in 1795.56Lamarckwas modestenoughto also praiseother
botanists'contributionsto plant classification.In a letterto the famous
botanical philanthropistJoseph Banks on June 28, 1784, Lamarck
wrotethat naturaland artificialmethods"do not harmeach otherat all,
in my opinion, and can contributetogetherto add to our knowledge
about plants."57Lamarck'scolleaguesalso describedhim as "neutral"
on the questionof whetherto preferthe sexual systemof Linnaeusor
the natural method of Antoine-Laurentde Jussieu (1748-1836) a
botanical demonstratorat the Jardin du Roi in Paris. Jussieu had
groupedplants accordingto the naturalmethod.His work, the Genera
plantarum,was a very comprehensive,largely empiricalclassification,
writtenin Latin.At the time,Jussieu'sbotanicalmethodwas considered
to be the most "natural"arrangementof plantseverproduced.58Justas
Lamarckhad producedan artificialclassificationwith no concessions
to maintainingnatural groups in his text, Jussieu had assembledhis
naturalmethod with emphasison detail in all its messy glory, not on
hand-holdingfor botanicalnovices. His work was notoriouslydifficult
to use for all but the most expert botanists (Figure7). Despite these
vastly differentapproachesto organizinginformation about plants,
LamarckrespectedJussieu'sscholarship.He consideredJussieu'swork
to be complementaryto his own.
56 Publication info from
Duris, 1997, p. 255. The death of Buffon, Lamarck's patron,
in 1788, also likely contributed to the delay in the reprinting of the Flore.
57
Audelin, Louise. "Les Jussieu. Un dynastie des botanistes au XVIIIe siècle
(1733-1819)." Ph D dissertation. L'École Nationale des Chartes, 1987, p. 513, cited by
Duris (1997, p. 256).
58 O.
Teissier, Étude biographiquesur Louis Gérard botaniste, Toulon, Aure, 1859,
p. 70, cited by Duris (1997, p. 258).

98 SARA T. SCHARF
Figure 7. Jussieif s description of the genus Valeriana discusses the parts of the flower
in the same order Linnaeus used, and with a larger number of technical terms, but
does away with the separate paragraphs for each part. Jussieu places more emphasis
than did Linnaeus on the variability in the numbers of parts seen in the plants of this
genus. Image © and courtesy of the Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Jussieupublishedhis GeneraPlantarumin 1789, the year when the

French Revolutionthrew the country into chaos. Though the Genera
Plantarumeventually became very well received among botanists in
France and abroad, botanical activity in France slowed during those
times of politicalinstability.By the time a relativelystable government
was formed,the botanicalestablishmentin Francehad a differentset of
prioritiesthan it had had before.

French Educational Reform
The majorityof botanistsand scientificinstitutionsin Parissurvivedthe

turbulenttimesof the Revolution.59 Afterwards,therewasa movementto
raise the quality of educationthroughoutFrance,and Ecoles centrales
were formedby decreeon the 7 ventôse, year II (February25, 1795).60
Botanicalinstructionbecame mandatoryin the new curriculum.The
teachingof naturalhistorywas consideredan excellentway to inspire
orderin youngmindswhileteachingthemto admirethenaturalbountyof
Francefrommedical,economic,culinary,aesthetic,and numerousother
perspectives.But how were instructorsto cope with hordes of students
whoseeducationhadconsistedexclusivelyof survivingthe Revolutionby
whatevermeanswereavailable,who knewno Latin,andwho hadto meet
governmentstandardsas soon as possible?
Acrossthe country,inspiredteacherslatchedonto whatevermethods
workedfor them- and fast. With so few teachersfor so many students,
studentshad to become as self-sufficientas possible when it came to
their botanicaleducation.The old-fashionedmethods of pointing out
plants and expectingstudentsto memorizethem, or guiding students
throughthe processof identifyingspecimensone-on-onewith the help
of dense and technicaltextbooks,clearlywere no longer sufficient.
At first,teachersadvisedtheirstudentsto usemultiplemethodsorsystems
as studyaids, assumingthat, wereany one methodto fail in a givencir-
cumstance,anotherwouldsucceed.61 Learningaboutplantsfrommultiple
systems had been advocated in the French literaturefor decades.For in-
stance,MichelAdanson(1727-1806)haddescribedinhisFamillesdesplantes
(1763-1764)a supposedlynaturalmethodhehaddevelopedafterpurporting
to havecomparedtheplantsthatkeyedouttogethermostoftenin 65artificial
methods.62 The EnglishbotanistColinMilne(1743-1815)summedup the
thoughtsof numerousFrenchauthorswhenhe wrotein 1778that,
Everyartificialmethod has necessarilydefects,voids, and obscure
points. But two methods, such as those of Tournefort and
59
Spary, 2000.
60
Ibid, pp. 228, 229, 235. The formation of the Ecoles centrales is also mentioned
directly as a reason for the publication of botanical texts in Lestiboudois (Lestiboudois,
1799, Vol. 1, vii).
61
E.g. Tournefort and Jolyclerc, 1797. Elémens. Lyon: Pierre Bernuset et comp.,
313-315; Lestiboudois. xii. Roger Williams provides additional examples of French
naturalists expressing this belief (Williams, 2001, p. 113).
62
Stafleu, 1966, p. ix. Exactly how Adanson proceeded has been a matter of con-
jecture and debate (Carteret, 2008).

100 SARA T. SCHARF
Linnaeus,so well conceived,so judiciouslyexecuted,and founded

upon observation,must enlighteneach other mutually.They can-
not err on the same subject;if the one wandersbut for a moment,
the other immediatelysets him in the rightpath.
The same reflectionoccursin comparingseveralother learnedand

ingeniousmethods;such as those of Haller,Van Royen, Sauvages,
Ludwig, Adanson and Duhamel; and the observationsscattered
thro'theworksof Jussieu,Guettard,Dillenius,Gerardandothers;so
certainis the maximwith whichI shall concludethis article,that a
multiplicityof methodsand observationscomparedtogether,leads
us to distinguishplants under a greaternumberof relations,and
consequentlyconductsus, with greaterease, to theirknowledge.63
Soon it becameevidentto the Frenchbotany instructorsnot only that
differentmethodshad differentadvantagesand disadvantages,but also
that certaincombinationsof methodsworkedbetterthan others.They
found that studentslearnedthe fastest when they had access both to
"artificial"works such as Lamarck'sFlore françoise or Linnaeus's
sexual system,which were the easiestto use for identifyingplants, and
to Tournefort'sor Jussieu'smore "natural"methods, which were the
best for learningabout how plantswererelatedto each other.It was not
long before a few enterprisingteacherspublishedbooks that contained
combinationsof these systems,usually Linnaeus'sand Tournefort's.64
63
Milne, 1770, under METHODUS. Milne was unusual among 18th century English
botanists in having a strong command of the French language and familiarity with
much of the French botanical literature. His opinion was not common among Anglo-
phones at the time.
64
E.g. Gilibert and Fleurieu de la Tourette's, 1797, and Nicolas Jolyclerc's French
translation of Tournefort's mostly Latin Élemens de botanique (1797). Jolyclerc's work
also contained "concordances" with the works of Linnaeus and Jussieu. The innovative
Jean-Baptiste Lestiboudois's Carte botanique(1773) (described in Lestiboudois 1781, p.
v) and his son Jean-François Lestiboudois' BotanographieBelgique (Lestiboudois, 1781,
iv) were similar works produced even before the Écoles centrales were formed. The
Botanographie Belgique is an abridgement of Lamarck's Flore Françoise, comprised of
fold-out illustrated curly bracket keys to 22 "natural families" similar to Tournefort's
groupings, synonymy with Linnaeus and Tournefort, and an index.
The production of these combination texts was a country-wide phenomenon. The
Lestiboudois family was based in Lille (Leclair, 1908), Gilibert and Fleurieu de la Tourette
were based in Lyon (Gilibert and de la Tourette 1797, p. xii), and Jolyclerc was an ex-
Benedictinemonk who started out in Lyon but taught botany in Tulle and Beauvais (Davy
de Virville, 1954. Histoire de la botanique en France. Nice: Comité Français du VIII0
Congrès International de Botanique, p. 76). Roger Williams describes a few more exam-
ples of similar works written around the same time (Williams, 2001, pp. 107, 114).

PLANTIDENTIFICATIONMANUALS 10 1
Students then needed to buy only one text for both identifying speci-
mens and learning more about them. It did not matter if different
species in the same genus were separated from each other in the artificial
key section, since they would all be clustered together in the "natural"
section. In 1803, this trend resulted in Canon François-Noël- Alexandre
Dubois publishing the first functional modern field guide to plants.65
Dubois's work was a flora of his home town, Orléans, with the title
Méthode éprouvée, avec laquelle on peut parvenir facilement, et sans
maître, à connoîtreles Plantes de l'intérieurde la France, et en particulier
celle des environs d'Orléans. Ouvrage infinimentutile aux personnes qui
passent une partie de Vannéeà la campagne, et aux jeunes gens auxquels
on veut inspirer du goût pour l'Histoire naturelle.66This book had the
tripartite structure of a strictly artificial key, a natural method section,
and an alphabetical index (see Figures 3, 4). Dubois described his
method as "proven" because of the years he had spent honing it with
successive classes of botanical students.67 Experienced botanists
regarded it highly as well, though it was useful only in the Orléans
region.68 Still, as Roger Williams noted, "Reprinted and revised after
Dubois's death, the flora remained in print well into the Second
Empire."69 In 1805, two years after Dubois's Méthode éprouvée was
released, Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle (1778-1841), a protégé of
Lamarck's, published a reworked version of the Flore Françoise, now
Française. The new Flore was arranged according to the same plan as
Dubois's work. The 1805 Flore became so popular that the print run of
5,000 sold out, even though it was not inexpensive at 50 francs. Used
copies fetched high prices once it was no longer in print.70
65 I have been able to find

very little biographical information about Dubois, other
than a brief obituary written in 1825. (Guillemin, 1825).
66 "Proven
method, with which one can arrive at knowing the plants of the interior of
France, and in particular those of the Orleans area, easily and without a master. An
infinitely useful work for people who spend part of the year in the countryside, and for
young people in whom one wishes to inspire a taste for natural history."
67
Dubois, [François-Noël-Alexandre]. 1803, p. vii.
68
Candolle, 1813, pp. 51-52.
69
Williams, 2001, p. 118.
70
Candolle, 2003. Mémoires et souvenirs. Edited by Candaux, Jean-Daniel and
Jean-Marc Drouin: Georg, 206-207. Five thousand copies was an extraordinarily high
print run for a natural history text at the time. As a comparison, botanical works of
similar scope in England at the turn of the 19th century were typically issued in print
runs of no more than 1,500 copies (Desmond, 2003, p. 18).

102 SARA T. SCHARF
English Adoption of Field Guides
Naturalistsacross the English Channelhad to wait a few more dec-

ades before equally effective plant identificationmanuals in their
native language were to appear. Several factors contributedto this
delay. First, there was no massive and sudden reform demanding
botanical education for the masses in Britain, as there had been in
France.The closest that Britaincame to this was the impositionof the
Apothecaries'Act of 1815. This Act of Parliamentstipulated that
botanical training had to be included in the studies of any aspiring
apothecary:after all, the majorityof medicinalsubstancessold at the
time came from plants. However, despite a proliferation in field
instructionin the wake of this Act, there was no correspondingburst
of botanicalpublishing.Apparentlyonly one handbookwas published
specificallyto address the burgeoning need for improved botanical
education of trainee apothecaries,and it has been described as a
"little-known"work.71Scholarsof Englishnaturalhistorybooks have
blamed the "prohibitivecost of printing just after the end of the
Napoleonic wars" for this situation.72Samuel FrederickGray's Sup-
plementto the Pharmacopoeia(1821b)was one of the firstintroductory
botanical works for apothecariesthat took advantageof what histo-
rian David Elliston Allen has described as the "breakthroughin
publishingeconomics"that occurredin the 1810s. Gray (1766-1828)
explainsthe Apothecaries'Act in great detail in it.73
Another factor contributingto the slow adoption of the natural
method and the subsequentdelay in the appearanceof functionalfield
guides (or vice versa) in England was that, unlike in France, most
serious botanical works - such as Ray's works and Robert Brown's
1810 Prodromusflorae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae Van-Diemen- were
71 I.e.
Salisbury, 1816, described as "little-known" in Allen 1976, pp. 106-107.
William Salisbury ( 17??-1816) was the partner and then successor to William Curtis
(1746-1799) as the head botanist at the Chelsea Physic Garden, a garden maintained by
the Society of Apothecaries for instructional purposes (de Almeida, 1991. Romantic
Medicine: Oxford University Press, 24, 148; Ewan and Ewan, 1963, p. 67). He is not to
be confused with Richard Antony Salisbury (1761-1829), the early, though unsuccess-
ful, promoter of Jussieu's natural method in Britain and a founding member of the
Horticultural Society of London. Richard Salisbury is notorious both for invoking the
wrath of Sir James Edward Smith by offering to take one of his young students to a
prostitute, and for plagiarizing Robert Brown's work on the Proteaceae (Mabberley,
1985, pp. 144, 150-153, 164).
72
Allen, 1976, p. 95; Henrey, 1975, pp. 149, 191-192; Ford, 2003, p. 572. Quotation
from Allen.
73
Gray, 1821b.

published in Latin.74The vast majority of English-languageworks

issuedin the 1770sand afterwardadopted Linnaeus'ssexual system.75
While Tournefort'sÉlémenswas translatedinto English in 1719, his-
torian Susan McMahon pointed out, it was "thoroughlyAnglicised.
Although deploying Tournefort'sscheme for classifying plants, the
edition utilised Raian nomenclature, terminology and descriptive
practicesfor its British audience."76No 18th century translatordid
the same for other French botanical innovators, such as Adanson,
Lamarck, or Jussieu, let alone lesser figures such as J.-B. or J.-F.
Lestiboudois, F.-N.-A. Dubois or A.-P. de Candolle. Furthermore,
Englishbotanistsnever widely adopted any of the botanicalmethods
their countrymenproduced.77There were therefore fewer methods
availableto choose from and combinein Britainthan therehad been in
France.The resultwas that Englishbotaniststook longer to conclude
that no one systemis best for everypurpose,and that it pays off in time
and effortsavedto use differenttechniquesfor identifyingplantsand for
describingtheir relationshipswith each other.
Patriotismalso played a significantrole in the persistenceof the
sexual system to the exclusion of other methods in Britain. English
botanistsresistedthe adoption of the sexual systemuntil the 1760sout
of deferenceto Ray. However, it became entrenchedin Britain once
WilliamWithering'sEnglishtranslationcame out in 1787 and people
74
Brown, 1810. This work was highly regarded by botanists. It was arranged
according to Jussieu's natural method but was published in Latin and unfinished.
75
English versions of Linnaeus's sexual system (or modifications thereof) include
Berkenhout, 1770, 1795; Linnaeus, 1787. Families of Plants. Vol. 1. Lichfleld: "A
Botanical Society" and Withering and Stokes, 1787. Withering's version of the sexual
system "became the standard text on British plants for at least a generation, passing
through three editions in the author's lifetime and several more following his death"
(Allen, 1976, p. 48). Sowerby and Smith's huge illustrated undertaking, English Botany
(1790-1814), was issued in fascicles labeled and indexed according to the order of the
sexual system (Sowerby and Smith, 1814. Indexes to English Botany. London: James
Sowerby). Even Thomas Martyn's translation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's letters on
botany included far more emphasis on the sexual system than did the French original
(Rousseau, 1796).
76
McMahon, 2005, p. 43.
77
E.g. John Hill's Vegetable System (1770), a work largely ignored by other botanists
partially on account of its cost and size, but also because of the obnoxious personality of
the author (Henrey, Vol. 2, pp. 90-109). Robson's BritishFlora {Mil. York: W. Blanchard
and Company) is a rare example of a portable English-languagework using more than one
well-known method. It presents plants according to a modified version of Ray's system,
but also includes synopses of the systems of Caesalpino and Tournefort. Robson refers to
the plants by Linnean binomials. He took his glossary almost word for word from
Linnaeus's PhilosophiaBotanica (1751). This work also never became popular.

104 SARAT. SCHARF
saw that Linnaeus'smethod was easier to use than Ray's. When the
EnglishmanJames Edward Smith (1759-1828) purchasedLinnaeus's
herbariumand other effects and helped found the LinneanSociety in
London in 1788, supportfor the sexual system also becamea way for
Englishnaturaliststo expressnationalpride.Furthermore,althoughtop
naturalistsin England and France often communicatedand traveled
back and forth, it becamemore difficultto do so duringthe Revolution
and the age of Napoleonic expansion,preciselythe time when all the
factorsleadingto the formationof field guidesin Francewere coming
together.Englishcultureat the time also fosteredan "anti-theoretical
attitude among naturalists."78Speculationand experimentationwere
discouraged.For many gentlemannaturalists,introducingchanges to
standardprocedureswas equivalentto startingdown the slipperyslope
to materialism,atheism, and social upheaval like what happenedin
France.79Englishbotanistswere alreadyheavilyinvestedin the sexual
system. They preferredto avoid conflict by correctingand modifying
it, rather than introducingnew classificationschemes. For example,
WilliamWitheringwrote in the introductionto his Botanicalarrange-
mentof Britishplants (1787) that in his work,
All controversiesabout systemare here studiouslyavoided. Man-
kind are weary of such unprofitabledisputes. Every System yet
invented,undoubtedlymay gloryin its peculiarbeauties,and, with
no less reason,blushfor its particulardefects.It is sufficientfor the
presentpurposethat the system of LINNAEUS is now very uni-
versallyadopted;and though confessedlyimperfect,it approaches
so near to perfection,that we may perhapsneverexpectto see any
otherimprovements,than such,as will be foundedupon his plan.80
Witheringadded, "the generalityof mankind are tired with disputes
about Systems,and the vegetableproductionsof Europeare prettywell
arranged:It is time thereforeto think of turning our acquisitionsto
some useful purpose"such as studyingtheir medicinaluses.81Linnean
SocietyPresidentJ. E. Smithlikewisepromotedthe view that it was in
botanists'best interestto follow in the footstepsof Linnaeus.Botanists
should not waste time experimentingwith other ways of arranging
78
Stevens,1994,p. 223.
79
Clark,2006.
80
Withering and Stokes, 1787, p. xxvi.
81
Ibid., pp. xx-xxi. William Smellie uses the same arguments in reference to
arrangements of animals in his Philosophy of natural history (1790) (Edinburgh: the heirs
of Charles Elliot and C. Elliot and T. Kay, T. Cadel, and G. G. J. & J. Robinsons, p. 8).

information,he wrote in 1798:"We who have it in our power to give

real informationshould despisethe silly vanity of makingnew systems
or arrangements,merely for the sake of being talked of."82 Many
like-mindedBritish naturalistsjustified this belief by suggestingthat
producingor using "the" naturalmethod was dependenton a perfect
knowledge of plants, but that this goal could never be attained.83
Nobody was willing to risk translatingavant-gardeFrenchworks into
Englishwhen politicaltensionsbetweenthe two countrieswere so high.
For example,in 1810, William Roscoe (1753-1831), a close friend of
Smith and an ardentLinnaean,suggestedthat even consideringusing
Jussieu'sarrangementin place of the sexual systemwas tantamountto
surrenderingto Napoleon!84Smith,later Sir James,also made surethat
anyone who disparagedthe sexual systemwas excludedfrom the cor-
ridors of power. For instance, he "blackballed"John Edward Gray
at the Linnean Society because his father (and, it was later revealed,
John Edward himself) produced an introductorywork in English
arrangedaccordingto Jussieu'smethod.85Similarly,whenJohn Lindley
(1799-1865), aged 19, published a translation of Louis-Claude
Richard'streatiseon fruit and seed structure,boldly announcingthat
Jussieu'snaturalmethodwas the way of the futureand that the sexual
systemwas old-fashioned,Smith,more than three times Lindley'sage,
respondedwith insultsand indignationnot at all befittinghis positionof
influence.After an acrimoniousexchangeof lettersin the Philosophical
MagazineandJournalin whichneitherman softenedhis position,Smith
essentiallyblacklistedLindleyfor life.86
Smithonly startedseeingthe meritsof Jussieu'snaturalmethodwhen
it becameclearto him that to ignoreit wouldconfirmEngland'sposition
as the botanicalbackwaterof Europe.The widespreaduse of Jussieu's
naturalmethod as a componentof introductoryand field-worthytexts
occurredonlyafterSmithdiedin 1828.Thenextyear,JohnLindleybegan
82
Smith, 1798, p. 58.
83
E.g. Roscoe, 1830; Fleming, 1822, 2. Roscoe's article was originally presented as a
talk at the Linnean Society on November 10th, 1810, then published in the Transactions
of the Linnean Society in 1815 and reprinted in the The Philosophical Magazine in 1830
due to the "renewed interest which the subject ... excited" (Roscoe, 1810, p. 15; Roscoe,
1815, p. 50).
84
Roscoe, 1830.
85 I.e.
Gray, 1821a, described as "blackballed" in both Knight, 1981, p. 118, and
Stearn, 1989, p. 24. Gray's book is not a field guide. It had no key or artificial section at
all and was difficult to navigate for beginners.
86 I.e. Richard and
Lindley, 1819. The exchange of letters is reproduced in Lindley
and Smith, 1825.

106 SARA T. SCHARF
to publish texts for his students at the newly-foundedUniversityof

London. He wrote that he had felt compelled to produce new texts
becausenothingsuitablefor teachingthe naturalsystemwas availablein
English,whilethe foreign-language textsavailableweretoo specialized.87
Lindley's instructivetexts were intended to introducestudentsto all of
botany,includingits history,plant morphologyand physiology,as well
as systematics.Lindleystructuredthe systematicschaptersin the same
formatused in the Frenchfieldguidesof Dubois and de Candolle,with
keys to guide studentsthrougha sectionarrangedaccordingto the nat-
ural method, supplementedby alphabeticalindexes. Lindley'sbooks
became extremelypopular.88Only after an Englishmanwas able to
popularizecombinationsof text navigationtools in botanicaltextswas it
possiblefor fieldguidesandlargerplantidentificationmanualsas we now
know them to developin the Englishlanguage.
The modern botanical identificationmanual and field guide were
thereforeforged by over a century'sworth of attemptsto make plant
identification as simple and easy as possible. Their development
requiredbotaniststo be humble,ingenious,practical,and community-
minded.Humble, because,not only were there more plant kinds than
anyonecould memorize,but the way of arrangingplantsthat botanists
thoughtwas most congruentwith naturedid not prove to be the most
natural to the mind, as botanists had originallybelieved. Ingenious,
because they used the tools they had - paper, printedwords, spatial
layout - to overcome these problemsin a variety of practicalways,
sometimes,as with Lamarck,in defianceof traditionalapproachesto
those problems.Community-minded, becauseteachingthe next gener-
ation of botanists is what often spurredinnovation. In the 18th and
early 19th centuries,field guides as a kind of communicationstech-
nology thereforegrew out of and played importantroles in holding
communitiestogether. They united botanical beginnerswith experts,
87
Lindley, 1846, pp. vi, x.
88 A
synopsis of the Britishflora (1829) ran to three editions, and the third edition was
reprinted. An outline of thefirst principles of botany (1830) was translated into German
(1831) and Italian (1834), and a second English edition appeared a year after its initial
publication. Nixus plantarum (1833) was originally published in Latin but it was also
translated into German. Both Nixus and Outline, being out of print by 1835, were
incorporated into A key to structural,physiological, and systematic botany (1835), which
was also reprinted. The second edition of An introductionto the natural system of botany
(1830) appeared under the title A natural system of botany (1836). Another work called
An introductionto botany (1832) ran to four editions. Ladies' botany (1834) ran to six
editions, and two abridgements were also published. Lindley published many more
botanical textbooks than these in the 1840s. For a complete list of Lindley's publications
(including the details mentioned above), see Allford, 1999.

and brought together naturalists of different ages and in different

countries,all for the sharedgoal of encouragingtheir users to interact
with other species.The only obstaclethat had to be overcomefor these
field guidesto be truly "modern"was that of reproducingillustrations
accuratelyand inexpensively.
Illustrated Bird Guides
Innovationsin printingtechnologyin the 1810scoupled with a reduc-

tion in the taxes on books in Britainin the early 1830s helped make
naturalhistory works possible and affordable.89
extensively-illustrated
Beginners' botanical guides with copious illustrationsincluded, for
instance, the well-loved Handbookof the British Flora by George
Bentham.90The ornithologicalbooks availablein the earlyto mid-19th
century,however,had a long way to go.
Scott WeidensaulconsidersThomas Nuttall's Manualof the Orni-
thologyof the UnitedStates and Canada(1832-1834) to be "the first
'field guide,' in any practical sense" despite its bulky 800 pages.91
Nuttall had earlier made his name as a botanist, producing several
botanicalbooks in the 1810sand early 1820s.If therewere a smoking
gun to show the impactof the developmentsin botanicalfieldguideson
guidesto animals,this book would seemto fit the bill. Nuttall,however,
was a traditionalist.His botanical books were arrangedaccordingto
Linnaeus'ssexual system, and his ornithologicalmanual follows stan-
dardzoologicalpracticesof the time, with an organizationalschemefar
less systematicthanwhat one findsin botanicalworks.For instance,it is
illustratedwith manywoodcuts,thoughnot of eachspecies.The manual
has no keys, no plan of the work or table of contents, and only a
rudimentaryindex. Whereas the descriptionsof plants in Nuttall's
botanical works followed the standardsthat had been in place since
Linnaeus,with informationabout each plant part presentedin point
form in the same order for each entry to facilitate skimming, the
descriptionsof birds in his Manualare in paragraphsand the infor-
mation about each bird is in no particularorder.92
By the late 19th century, scholarly ornithologicalworks such as
ElliottCoues'seminalKeyto NorthAmericanBirds(1872)introducedto
89
Allen, 1976, p. 95.
90
Bentham, 1865. The first edition of this popular work was not illustrated.
91
Weidensaul, 2007, p. 191.
92
Nuttall, 1818, 1827, 1830.

108 SARAT. SCHARF
ornithologicalguidesthe innovationsin layout that had madebotanical

guidesso successfulmanydecadesearlier.In a way, Coues'workdid for
ornithologywhat Lamarck'sFlorefrançoisehad done for botany.93It
becamethe "standardidentificationmanual"for birds,despiteits size,
and went throughfive editionsby 1903.94
The keys in Coues'Key and similarbooks publishedin the late 19th
and early20th centuriesall reliedon theirusersto have dead specimens
in hand duringthe process of identification,much as botanistswould
have freshplantsor herbariumspecimensat theirdisposal.Fortunately
for the birds, in the 1880s and 1890s, birdwatchingdevelopedinto a
sport more reliant on binocularsthan on shotguns. As historian of
ornithologyTom Dunlap pointedout, "Keysneverworkedwith things
that moved."95The producersof identificationguides adapted to the
new, morehumaneornithologyby gettingrid of keys and increasingthe
numberand qualityof illustrationsto allow live specimensto be iden-
tifiedat a distance.96Laterstill, the improvementsin illustrationquality,
coupled with the innovations in layout (the "PetersonIdentification
System")introducedby Roger Tory Petersonin his works, startingin
the 1930s,madefieldguidesevenmorepracticaland popular.Peterson's
main contributionwas to group birds using "shape,pattern,and field
marks, in a comparativeway." As he explained in his authorized
biography, this meant that "Similar-appearingspecies are placed
togetheron platesand the criticaldistinctionsare pointedout with little
arrows."97Peterson's system combines the benefits of the natural
methodand keys. Its accurateimagesallow usersto identifyorganisms
by gestalt impression,as they had done in readingthe descriptionsof
"natural"orders or genera. By pointing out significantdifferences
betweensimilarorganismsarrangedside-by-side,Peterson'ssystemalso
retains the distinguishingpower and precision of a key. Many late
93
Many botanists in the last decades of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th
century credited the Flore franfoise (1779) or its second edition, the Flore française
(1805) with sparking their interest in botany, e.g. du Petit-Thouars, 1811b; Bentham,
1997, p. 36 - Bentham abandoned his incipient law career to become a botanist).
Similarly, Weidensaul notes that the ornithologist Frank Chapman "abandoned] his
career in banking in favor of ornithology" after discovering Coues's Key (2007, p. 193).
94
Barrow, 1998, p. 156; Weidensaul, 2007, p. 192. Quotation from Barrow.
95 Personal
communication, email, June 28, 2007.
96
Barrow, 1998, p. 156.
97
MacLeay, 1821. Quotations from Devlin and Naismith, 1977, p. xvi, Peterson's
italics.

20th-centuryand 21st centuryprinted guides using this format work

well without keys or phylogeny-basedsectionsat all.
I cannothelp but thinkthat the majorityof botanistsof the 18thand
19th centurieswould have approvedof Peterson'sguides. They could
only dreamof teachingstudentsto identifyorganismsin the field with
inexpensive,illustratedworks. But when they made do with the tech-
nology and cost constraintsof theirage, they still left a markon future
workson identification.In this sense,wordsdo have the last word:even
in the visually-orientedguides we are accustomed to using today,
illustrationsmust be coupled with a structuredway of proceedingin
order to be most useful. As the physicianJonathan Stokes noted in
1787, "figures,without a system to conduct the readerto them, are
almostuseless."98Eighteenth-century botanistsweretrailblazerswhenit
came to presenting critical details in user-friendlyformats. Their
attentionto detail and to the differentways that users approachspec-
imensduringthe identificationprocesslaid the groundworkupon which
Peterson and others later built illustratedguides. The charmingbird
books of the late 19th and early 20th centuriesthereforeowe their
successpartiallyto theirplainerbotanicalpredecessors.
Acknowledgements
The researchfor this article was supported by a SSHRC Doctoral
Dissertation Fellowship for Sara Scharf (2003-2006) and a Library
and Archives Visiting Fellowship at King's College London (2007).
Mary P. "Polly"Winsor, CharissaVarma,Nadia Talent, three anon-
ymous reviewers, and, especially, Staffan Muller-Willeand Renzo
Baldassoprovidedhelpfulfeedbackon draft versions.
References
Adanson, Michel. 1966. Familles des Plantes. Lehre: J. Cramer.

Aeschimann, David, Lauber, Konrad, Moses, Daniel, Martin and Theurillat, Jean-Paul.
2004. Flora Alpina, 3 vols, Vol. 1. Bern: Haupt Verlag.
Allen, David Elliston. 1976. The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History. London: Allen
Lane.
1996. "The Struggle for Specialist Journals: Natural History in the British Peri-
odicals Market in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century." Archives of Natural
History 23(1): 107-123.
98
Withering and Stokes, 1787, p. xxxiii.

110 SARAT. SCHARF
2001. "Natural History in Britain in the Eighteenth Century." In Naturalists and

Society: The Cultureof Natural History. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, pp. 333-347.
Allford, J.M. 1999. "List of the Published Works of John Lindley." Stearn, William T.
(éd.), John Lindley, 1799-1865: Gardener-Botanist and Pioneer Orchidologist.
Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Antique Collectors' Club in association with the Royal
Horticultural Society, pp. 197-218.
Allmon, Warren D. 2007. "The Evolution of Accuracy in Natural History Illustration:
Reversal of Printed Illustrations of Snails and Crabs in Pre-Linnaean Works Suggests
Indifferenceto Morphological Detail." Archives of Natural History 34(1): 174-191.
de Almeida, Hermione. 1991. Romantic Medicine and John Keats. Oxford University
Press.
Arber, Agnes Robertson. 1938. Herbals: Their Origin and Evolution, A Chapter in the
History of Botany (1470-1670), 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press.
Atran, Scott. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towardan Anthropology
of Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barrow, Mark Velpeau Jr. 1998. A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology After
Audubon.Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Bentham, George. 1865. Handbook of the British flora; A Description of the Flowering
Plants and Ferns Indigenous To, or Naturalized In, the British Isles. For the Use of
Beginnersand Amateurs . . . with Illustrationsfrom OriginalDrawings by W. Fitch, 2nd
éd., 2 vols, Vol. 1. London: Lovell Reeve & Co.
1997. George Bentham: Autobiography, 1800-1834. Marion Filipiuk (éd.).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bergeret, [Jean-Pierre]. 1783-1784. Phytonomatotechnie universelle. Paris: l'auteur,
Didot, et Poisson.
Berkenhout, John. 1770. Outlines of the Natural history of Great Britain and Ireland,
Vol. 2. London: P. Elmsly.
1795. Synopsis of the Natural history of Great-Britain and Ireland ... Being a Third
Edition of the Outlines, &c. Correctedand ConsiderablyEnlarged. Comprehendingthe
Vegetable Kingdom, Vol. 2. London: T. Cadell.
Bewick, Thomas. 1797. History of British Birds, the Figures Engraved on Wood by
T. Bewick, 2 vols. Newcastle: Sol Hodgson for Beiley & Bewick.
Biedleman, Linda H. and Kozloff, Eugene N. 2003. Plants of the San Francisco Bay
region, Revised ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blunt, Wilfrid. 1971. The Compleat Naturalist: A Life of Linnaeus. New York: Viking.
Boerhaave, Herman. 1719. A Method of Studying Physick. Translated by Samber.
London: H. P. for C. Rivington ... B. Creake ... and J. Sackfield.
Bornbusch, Alan H. 1989. "Lacépède and Cuvier: A Comparative Case Study of Goals
and Methods in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century Fish Classifica-
tion." Journal of the History of Biology 22(1): 141-161.
Brown, Paul Martin and Folsom, Stan. 2006. Wild Orchids of the Canadian Maritimes
and Northern Great Lakes Region. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Bruce-Grey Plant Committee, Owen Sound Field Naturalists. 1997. A Guide to the
Orchids of Bruce and Grey Counties, Ontario. Owen Sound: Stan Brown Printers
Limited.
Bucquet. 1773. Introduction à Vétude des corps naturels, tirés du règne végétal, 2 vols.
Paris: la Veuve Hérissant.
Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de. 1749. Histoire naturelle générale et particu-
lière, avec la descriptiondu Cabinet du Roy, 15 vols, Vol. 2. Paris: Impremerie Royale.

Candolle, A[ugustin]-P[yramus] de. 1813. Théorie élémentaire de la botanique, ou

exposition des principesde la classificationnaturelleet de l'art de décrireet d'étudierles
végétaux. Paris: Déterville.
Candolle, Augustin-Pyramus de. 2003. Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle: mémoires et
souvenirs (1778-1841). Edited by Candaux, Jean-Daniel and Drouin, Jean-Marc:
Georg.
Cantor, Geoffrey, Dawson, Gowan, Gooday, Graeme, Noakes, Richard, Shuttleworth,
Sally and Topham, Jonathan R. 2004. Science in the Nineteenth-CenturyPeriodical:
Reading the Magazine of Nature. CambridgeStudies in Nineteenth-CenturyLiterature
and Culture (No. 45). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Carteret, Xavier. 2008. "Michel Adanson (1727-1806) et la méthode naturelle de clas-
sification." Ph D thesis. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
Chapman, William K. 1997. Orchidsof the Northeast. A Field Guide. Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press.
Christofides, Yiannis. 2001. The Orchids of Cyprus. A Guide to the Cyprus Orchids.
Plâtres, Cyprus: n.p.
Clark, J.F.M. 2006. "History from the Ground Up: Bugs, Political Economy, and God
in Kirby and Spence's Introduction to Entomology (1815-1856)." Isis 97: 28-55.
Comber, J.B. 2001. Orchids of Sumatra. Richmond, Surrey: Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew.
Cooper, Alix. 2007. Inventing the Indigenous: Local Knowledge and Natural History in
Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coues, Elliott. 1872. Key to North American birds, containing a concise accounte of every
species of living and fossil bird at present known from the continent north of the
Mexican and United States boundary.Illustrated by 6 steel plates, and upwardsof 250
woodcuts. Salem: Naturalists' Agency.
Cowrie, I.D., Short, P.S. and Osterkamp Madsen, M. 2000. FloodplainFlora: A Flora of
the Coastal Floodplains of the Northern Territory, Australia. Flora of Australia
SupplementarySeries Number 10. Canberra: Australia Biological Resources Study.
Cribb, Phillip and Whister, W. Arthur. 1996. Orchids of Samoa, n.p.: Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew.
Davy de Virville, Adrien. 1954. Histoire de la botanique en France. Nice: Comité
Français du VIII Congrès International de Botanique.
Daudin, Henri. [1926]. De Linné à Jussieu. Méthodes de la classificationet idée de série en
botanique et en zoologie (1740-1790). Paris: Libraire Félix Alcan.
Dayrat, Benoît. 2003. Les botanistes et la flore de France: trois siècles de découvertes.
Paris: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.
Desmond, Ray. 2003. Great Natural History Books and Their Creators. London: British
Library.
Dickinson, Timothy, Metsger, Deborah, Bull, Jenny and Dickinson, Richard. 2004. The
ROM Field Guide to Wildflowersof Ontario. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Drayton, Richard Harry. 2000. Nature's Goverment:Science, Imperial Britain, and the
'Improvement'of the World. New Haven: Yale University Press.
du Petit-Thouars, Aubert. 1811a. "Dissertation sur l'enchaînement des êtres, lue en la
séance publique du Collège des Philalèthes de Lille, du 19 mai 1788." In Mélanges de
botanique et de voyages. Paris: Arthus Bertrand, pp. 1^8.

112 SARAT. SCHARF
1811b. "Observations sur les plantes des isles australes de l'Afrique." In Mélanges
de botanique et de vovages. Paris: Arthus Bertrand.
Dubois, [François-Noël-Alexandre]. 1803. Méthode éprouvée, avec laquelle on peut
parvenirfacilement , et sans maître, à connoîtreles Plantes de l'intérieurde la France, et
en particulier celle des environs d'Orléans. Ouvrage infinimentutile aux personnes qui
passent une partie de Vannée à la campagne, et aux jeunes gens auxquels on veut
inspirerdu goût pour l'Histoire naturelle. Orléans: Darnault-Maurant.
Dunlap, Tom. Tom Dunlap on Early Bird Guides January 2005 [cited June 21 2007].
Available from http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/eh/10. 1/gallery.html.
Dunne, Pete. 2003. Pete Dunne on Bird Watching: The How-To, Where-To,and when-to.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Field Guides.
Duris, Pascal. 1997. "Lamarck et la botanique linnéenne." Goulven Laurent (éd.),
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 1744-1829. Paris: CTHS (Comité des travaux historiques et
scientifiques), pp. 253-266.
Ewan, Joseph and Ewan, Nesta. 1963. "John Lyon, Nurseryman and Plant Hunter, and his
Journal, 1799-1814." Transactionsof the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety 53(2): 1-69.
Fleming, John. 1822. The Philosophy of Zoology; or a General View of the Structure,
Functions, and Classification of Animals. Edinburgh: Archibald Constable & Co.
Ford, Brian J. 2003. "Scientific Illustration in the Eighteenth Century." R. Porter (éd.),
Eighteenth-CenturyScience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 561-583.
Freedberg, David. 2002. The Eye of the Lynx: Galileo, His Friends, and the Beginningsof
Modern Natural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gentry, Alwyn H. and Vasquez, Rodolfo. 1996. A Field Guide to the Families and
Generaof Woody Plants of Northwest South America (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru) with
SupplementaryNotes on Herbaceous Taxa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilibert, Jean Emmanuel and de la Tourette, Louis Claret de Fleurieu. 1797. Démon-
strations élémentaires de botanique, contenant les Principes généraux de cette Science,
l'explication des termes, les fondamens des Méthodes, & les élémens de la physique des
végétaux. La description des Plantes les plus communes, les plus curieuses, les plus
utiles, rangées suivant la Méthode de M. DE TOURNEFORT & celle du Chevalier
LINNÉ. Leurs usages & leurs propriétés dans les Arts, l'économie rurale, dans la
Médecine humaine & Vétérinaire;ainsi qu'une instructionsur la formation d'un Her-
bier, sur la dessication, la macération, l'infusion des plantes, &c. Torisieme édition,
corrigé & consideralement augmentée, 3 éd., 3 vols. Lyon: Bruyset Frères.
Givens, Jean A. 2006. "Reading and Writing the Illustrated Tractatus de herbis,
1280-1526." J.A. Givens, K.M. Reeds and A. Touwaide (eds.), Visualizing
Medieval Medicine and Natural History, 1200-1500. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate,
pp. 115-145.
Gray, Samuel Frederick. 1821a. A Natural Arrangementof British plants, according to
their relations to each other, as pointed out by Jussieu, de Candolle, Brown, &c.
including those cultivatedfor use; with an introductionto Botany, in which the terms
newly introduced are explained; illustrated by figures, 2 vols. London: Baldwin,
Cradock, and Jov.
1821b. A Supplementto the Pharmacopoeia, 2nd ed. London: Thomas and George
Underwood.
Griffiths,Antony. 2004. Printsfor Books: Book Illustrationin France, 1760-1800. London:
British Library.
Guillemin. 1825. "Notice nécrologique sur F.N.A. Dubois, chanoine de l'église
d'Orléans." Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles 5(5): 100-101.

Hawthorne, William and Jongkind, Cari. 2006. Woody Plants of Western African
Forests. A Guide to the Forest Trees, Shrubs and Lianes from Senegal to Ghana.
Richmond, Surrey: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
te Heesen, Anke. 2005. "Accounting for the Natural World: Double-Entry Book-
keeping in the Field." L. Schiebinger and C. Swann (eds.), Colonial Botany: Science,
Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, pp. 237-251.
Henrey, Blanche. 1975. British Botanical and Horticultural Literature Before 1800:
Comprisinga History and Bibliographyof Botanical and Horticultural Books Printed
in England, Scotland, and Irelandfrom the Earliest Times Until 1800, 3 vols, Vol. 1.
London: Oxford University Press.
Heywood, V.H. 1985. "Linnaeus - The Conflict Between Science and Scholasticism."
J. Weinstock (éd.), Contemporary Perspectives on Linnaeus. Lanham: University
Press of America, pp. 1-15.
Hill, John. 1770. The Vegetable System, 2nd éd., Vol. 1. London.
Jussieu, Antoine-Laurent de. 1789. Genera plantarum secundum ordines naturales dis-
posita. Paris: Hérissant & Theophilum Barrois.
Knight, David M. 1981. Ordering the World. London: Burnett Books.
Koerner, Lisbet. 1995. "Women and Utility in Enlightenment Science." Configurations
3(2): 233-255.
1999. Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kusukawa, Sachiko. 2000a. "Illustrating Nature." M. Frasca-Spada and N. Jardine
(eds.), Boohs and the Sciences in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 90-113.
2000b. "The Historia Piscium (1686)." Notes and Records of the Royal Society of
London 54(2): 179-197.
Lahring, Heinjo. 2003. Water and Wetland Plants of the Prairie Provinces. Regina:
Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.
Lamarck, [Jean-Baptiste Pierre de Monet de]. 1779. Flore franpoise [sic] ou description
succincte de toutes les plantes qui croissentnaturellementen France, disposéesselon une
nouvelle méthode d'analyse, & à laquelle on a joint la citation de leurs vertus les moins
équivoques en médecine, & de leur utilité dans les arts, Vol. 1. Paris: Impremerie
Royale.
Larson, James L. 1967. "Linnaeusand the Natural Method." his 58(3): 304-320.
1971. Reason and Experience: The Representationof Natural Order in the Work of
Carl von Linné. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Leclair, Edmond. 1908. "Les Lestiboudois (Jean-Baptiste, François-Joseph, Thémisto-
cle): botanistes Lillois." Bulletin de la Société d'Etudes de la Province de Cambrai 12:
39-91.
Lestiboudois, François-Joseph. 1781. Botanographie Belgique, ou méthode pour con-
noùre facilement toutes les Plantes qui croissent naturellement, ou que Von cultive
communémentdans les Provinces septentrionalesde la France. Lille: J. B. Henry.
1799. Botanographie Belgique, 2nd éd., 3 in 4 vols, Vol. 1. Lille: Vanackere.
Lewis, Rhodri. 2007. Language, Mind and Nature: Artificial Languages in Englandfrom
Bacon to Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindley, John. 1829. An IntroductoryLecture Delivered in the University of London on
Thursday,April 30, 1829. London: John Taylor.

114 SARAT. SCHARF
1846. The Vegetable Kingdom, or, the Structure, Classification, and Uses of Plants,
Illustrated Upon the Natural System. With Upwards of Five Hundred Illustrations.
London: For the author, by Bradbury & Evans.
Lindley, John and Smith, James Edward, Sir. 1825. A Letter to the Editors of the
Philosophical Magazine and Journal; upon the correspondence between Sir James
Edward Smith and Mr. Lindley, which has lately appeared in that journal. London:
James Ridgway and Sons.
Linnaeus. 1735. Systerna naturae. Lugduni Batavorum: Theodorum Haak.
1737. Critica Botanica. Leiden: Conrad Wishoff& fil.
Linnaeus, Carolus. 1738. Classes Plantarum. Lugduni Batavorum: Conradum Wishoff.
1751. Philosophia Botanica. Stockholmiae: Godofr. Kiesewetter.
1754. Genera Plantarum, 5th ed. Holmiae: Laurentii Salvii.
2003. Philosophia Botanica. Translated by Freer, Stephen. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Linnaeus, [Carolus vonl. 1764. Genera Plantarum, 6th ed. Holmiae: Laurentii Salvii.
1787. Thefamilies of plants, with their natural characters, acording to the number,
figure, situation, andproportionof all theparts offructification. Translatedfrom the last
edition ( as published by Dr. Reichard) of the Genera Plantarum, and of the Mantissae
Plantarum,of the elder Linnaeus;andfrom the SupplementumPlantarumof theyounger
Linnaeus, with all the newfamilies of plants, from Thunbergand L'Héritier ... Vol. 1.
Lichfield: "A Botanical Society.".
Lôpez Gonzalez, Ginés A. 2002. Guia de los ârboles y arbustos de la Peninsula Ibérica y
Baléares. Madrid: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa.
Maat, Jaap. 2004. Philosophical Languages in the Seventeenth Century: Dalgarno,
Wilkins, Leibniz. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mabberley, D.J. 1985. Jupiter Botanicus: Robert Brown of the British Museum.
Braunschweig: Verlag von J. Cramer.
MacKay, James Townsend. 1836. Flora Hibernica, Comprising the Flowering Plants,
Ferns, Characeae, Musci, Hepaticae, Lichenes, and Algae of Ireland, Arranged
According to the Natural System, with a Synopsis of the Genera According to the
Linnaean system. Dublin: William Curray Jun. and co.; London: Simpkin Marshall
and Co.; Edinburgh: Fraser and Co.
MacLeay, W[illiam] S[harpe]. 1821. Horae Entomologicae: or Essays on the Annulose
Animals, Vol. 1. London: S. Baester.
Magnin-Gonze, Joëlle. 2004. Histoire de la botanique. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.
McMahon, Susan. 2002. "Classification: Sorting Out Early Modem England (draft).".
2005. "Boundary Work: 'National Quarrels and Party Factions' in Eighteenth-
Century British Botany." D.M. Knight and M.D. Eddy (eds.), Science and Beliefs:
From Natural Philosophy to Natural Science, 1700-1900. 43-61. Aldershot: Ashgate.
McOuat, Gordon R. 2001a. "Cataloguing Power: Delineating 'Competent Naturalists'
and the Meaning of Species in the British Museum." British Journalfor the History of
Science 34(120): 1-28.
2001b. "From Cutting Nature at its Joints to Measuring It: New Kinds and New
Kinds of People in Biology." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
32(4): 613-645.
Milne, Colin. 1770. A Botanical Dictionary: or Elements of Systematic and Philosophical
Botany. London: William Griffin.
1771. Institutes of botany; containing accurate, compleat and easy descriptionsof all
the known genera of plants: translatedfrom the Latin of the celebrated Charles von

Linné, ...To which are prefixed, I. A view of the ancient and present state of botany.
IL A synopsis, exhibiting the essential or striking characters whichserve to discriminate
genera. London: W. Griffin.
Muller-Wille, Staffan. 2007a. "Collection and Collation: Theory and Practice of Lin-
naean Botany." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in
History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomédical Sciences 38(3): 541-562.
2007b. "Introduction." In Carl Linnaeus. Musa Cliffortiana: Clifford's Banana
Plant. With an Introduction by S. Mûller-Wille. Translated by S. Freer. Vienna:
International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
Mûller-Wille, Staffan and Reeds, Karen. 2007. "A Translation of Carl Linnaeus's
Introduction to Genera plantarum (1737)." Studies in History and Philosophy of
Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomédical
Sciences 38(3): 563-572.
Mûnera-Roldân, Claudia and Cordoba-Cordoba, Sergio. 2007. "El arte de ilustrar
Aves, una breve resena de la historia del arte en la ornitologia." Boletin SAO 17(1):
1-9.
Nuttall, Thomas. 1818. The Genera of North American Plants, and a Catalogue of the
Species to the Year 1817, 2 vols. Philadelphia: for the author.
1827. An Introduction to Systematic and Physiological Botany. Cambridge, MA:
Hilliard and Brown.
1830. An Introductionto Systematic and Physiological Botany, 2nd ed. Cambridge,
MA: Hilliard and Brown.
1832-1834. A Manual of the Ornithology of the United States and Canada, 2 vols.
Hilliard and Brown.
Ogilvie, Brian W. 2006. The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance
Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Parrish, Susan Scott. 2006. American Curiosity: Cultures of Natural History in the
Colonial British Atlantic World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Pavord, Anna. 2005. The Naming of Names: The Search for Order in the World of
Plants. London: Bloomsbury.
Raven, Charles E. 1986. John Ray, Naturalist: His Life and His Works, 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ray, John. 1686-1704. Historia Plantarum. London: H. Faithorne.
1848. The Correspondenceof John Ray. Edwin Lankester (éd.). London: Ray
Society.
Redi, Carlo Alberto, Garagna, Silvia, Zuccotti, Maurizio, Capanna, Ernesto and
Zacharia, Helmut (eds.). 2000. Visual Zoology: The Pavia Collection of Leuckart's
Zoological Wall Charts (1877). Pavia: Ibis.
Reeds, Karen. 2004. "When the Botanist can't Draw: The Case of Linnaeus." Inter-
disciplinary Science Reviews 29(3): 248-258.
Richard, Louis-Claude and Lindley, John. 1819. Observationson the structureoffruits and
seeds, translatedfrom the Analyse dufruit ofM. Louis-ClaudeRichard. . . Comprisingthe
author'slatest corrections;and illustratedwithplates and originalnotes by John Lindley.
Translated by Lindley, John. London: John Harding.
Robson, Stephen. 1777. The British Flora. York: W. Blanchard and Company.
Roscoe, William. 1815. "On Artificial and Natural Arrangements of Plants: and Parti-
cularly on the Systems of Linnaeus and Jussieu." Transactionsof the Linnean Society
11: 50-78.

116 SARA T. SCHARF
1830. "On Artificial and Natural Arrangements of Plants: and Particularly on

the Systems of Linnaeus and Jussieu." Philosophical Magazine 7(37): 15-23, 7(38):
97-104; 7(39): 180-185.
Rossi, Paolo. 2000. Logic and the Art of Memory: The Questfor a UniversalLanguage.
Translated by Clucas, Stephen. London: The Athlone Press.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1796. Letters on the elements of botany, addressed to a lady, by
the celebrated J. J. Rousseau. Translated into English, with notes, and twenty-four
additional letters, fully explaining the system of Linnaeus. Translated by Martyn,
Thomas, 5 ed. London: B. and J. White.
1983. Le botaniste sans maître, ou, manière d'apprendreseul la botanique;frag-
ments pour un dictionnaire des termes d'usage en botanique. Edited by Haudricourt,
A. G. Paris: Éditions A.M. Métailié.
Salisbury, William. 1816. The Botanist's Companion, or An Introduction to the Knowl-
edge of Practical Botany, and the Uses of Plants Either Growing Wild in Great Britain,
or Cultivatedfor the Purposes of Agriculture, Medicine, Rural Oeconomy, or the Arts.
London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown.
Saunders, Samuel. 1792. A Short and Easy Introduction to Scientific and Philosophic
Botany. London: B. White and Sons.
Scharf, Sara Tovah. 2007. "Identification Keys and the Natural Method: The Devel-
opment of Text-Based Information Management Tools in Botany in the Long
Eighteenth Century." Ph D thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Schiebinger, Londa. 2003. "The Philosopher's Beard: Women and Gender in Science."
R. Porter (éd.), Eighteenth-Century Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 184-210.
2004. Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schmidt, Diane. 1999. A Field Guide to Field Guides: Identifying the Natural History of
North America. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
2006. "Field Guides in Academe: A Citation Study." Journal of Academic
Librarianship32(3): 274-285.
Secord, Anne. 1996. "Artisan Botany." N. Jardine, J.A. Secord and E.C. Spary (eds.),
Cultures of Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 378-393.
2002. "Botany on a Plate." Isis 93: 28-57.
Shteir, Ann B. 1996. Cultivating Women, Cultivating Science: Flora's Daughters and
Botany in England, 1760-1860. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, Mary M. 1982. Universal Languages and Scientific Taxonomy in the Seven-
teenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smellie, William. 1790. The Philosophy of Natural History. Edinburgh: the heirs of
Charles Elliot and C. Elliot and T. Kay, T. Cadel, and G. G. J. & J. Robinsons.
Smith, James Edward. 1798. "Discourse on the Rise and Progress of Natural
History." James Edward Smith (éd.), Tracts Relating to Natural History. London:
J. Davis, pp. 49-162.
Smolker, Robert E. 1967. "Birds of North America. A Guide to Field Identification.
Chandler S. Robbins; Bertel Brun; Herbert S. Zim." The QuarterlyReview of Biology
42(4): 556-558.
Sowerby, James and Smith, James Edward, Sir. 1814. General indexes to the thirty-six
volumes of English botany; to which is added, an alphabetical index to Englishfungi;
making together, a catalogue of indigenous British plants. London: James Sowerby.

Spary, Emma C. 2000. Utopia's Garden: French Natural History from Old Regime to
Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stafleu, Frans A. 1966. "Introduction." In Familles des plantes. Lehre: J. Cramer.
Stafleu, Frans Antoine. 1971. Linnaeus and the Linnaeans: The Spreading of Their Ideas
in Systematic Botany, 1735-1789. Utrecht: A. Oosthoek.
Stearn, W.T. 1959. "The Background of Linnaeus's Contributions to the Nomenclature
and Methods of Systematic Biology." Systematic Zoology 8(1): 4-22.
Stearn, William T. 1986. "The Wilkins Lecture, 1985: John Wilkins, John Ray and
Carl Linnaeus." Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 40(2): 101-123.
1989. "S. F. Gray's Natural Arrangement of British Plants (1821)." Plant Sys-
tematics and Evolution 167(1-2): 23-34.
Stearn, William T. and Bridson, Gavin D.R. 1978. Carl Linnaeus 1707-1778: A
Bicentenary Guide to the Career and Achievementsof Linnaeus and the Collections of
the Linnean Society. Cambridge: Linnean Society of London.
Stevens, Peter F. 1994. The Development of Biological Systematics: Antoine-Laurent de
Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stevenson, R.D., Haber, William A. and Morris, Robert A. 2003. "Electronic Field
Guides and User Communities in the Eco-Informatics Revolution." Conservation
Ecology 7(1): 3 [article 3 - unpaginated].
Stuart, John, Earl of Bute. 1787. The Tabular Distribution of British Plants, Part I.
Containing the genera: J. Davis.
Tournefort, Joseph Pitton de. 1694. Elémens de botanique, ou méthodepour connoître les
plantes. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.
Tournefort, Joseph Pitton de, and Jolyclerc, Nicolas. 1797. Elémens de botanique, ou
méthode pour connoitre les plantes, par Pitton de Tournefort. Edition augmentée de
tous les supplémensdonnéspar Antoine de Jussieu; enrichie d'une concordanceavec les
classes, les ordres du système sexuel de Linné, et les familles naturelles créées
par Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu [sic] ; mise à la portée de tous les hommes par
l'interprétationfrançaise du texte grec ou latin des espèces admises dans les auteurs,
par des additions très-considérablesau dictionnaire des termes du botaniste, etc. Par
N. Jolyclerc ... 6 vols. Lyon: Pierre Bernuset et comp.
Trelease, William, Bailey, W. Whitman and Knowlton, F.H. 1886. "Arrangement of
Herbaria, Etc." Botanical Gazette 11(5): 120-121.
Turner, A.J. 1978. "Andrew Paschall's Tables of Plants for the Universal Language,
1678." The Bodleian Library Record 9: 346-350.
Weeks, Sally S., Weeks, Harmon P. Jr. and Parker, George R. 2005. Native Trees of the
Midwest: Identification, Wildlife Values, and Landscaping Use. West Lafayette, IN:
Purdue University Press.
Weidensaul, Scott. 2007. Of a Feather: A Brief History of American Birding. Orlando:
Harcourt.
Williams, Roger L. 2001. Botanophilia in Eighteenth-Century France. International
Archives of the History of Ideas 179. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Withering, William. 1776. A Botanical Arrangement of all the Vegetables Naturally
Growing in Great Britain . . . Illustrated by Copper Plates and a Copious Glossary.
Birmingham: M. Swinney.
Withering, William and Stokes, Jonathan. 1787. A Botanical Arrangement of British
Plants, 2nd ed. Birmingham: M. Swinney.
Wunderlin, Richard P. and Hansen, Bruce F. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of
Florida, 2nd ed. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.


Identification Keys & The Natural Method

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Identification Keys & The Natural Method

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Identification Keys, the "Natural Method," and the Development of Plant Identification

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.40 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:21:20 AM