Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology

Plant systematics in Jena during the early 19 th century
presented three categories of natural methods to his readers 10, first the tentative method
of the French botanist Pierre Magnol (1638-1715), then the general comparison of plant
features as carried out by Michel Adanson 11 (1727-1806) in his “Familles des Plantes”
(1763), and finally the simultaneous use and weighting of every plant characteristic, as in
the works of Bernard and Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu 12. As early as 1773 the latter presented
this idea of weighting and subordination of plant characteristics to the Académie
des Sciences in a paper on the Ranunculaceae (crowfoot) in which the species were described
with the terminology of M. Adanson. Considering this principle of subordination
as well as the comparative anatomy of fructifications and seeds he later laid the foundation
for his “méthode naturelle” and consequently the physical basis of his natural orders
in his Genera plantarum (1789). The notion of Methodus naturalis is introduced in the introduction
of the Genera plantarum in the following way:
“Haec dudum quaesita ordinatio, inter omnès longè praecipua, sola verè uniformis ac simplex,
affinitatum legibus constanter obtemperans, est methodus dicta naturalis quae omnigenas connectit
plantas vinculo indiviso, & gradatim à simplici ad compositam, à minimâ ad maximam, continuatâ
serie procedit, […]” 13
Few years later A.-L. de Jussieu contrasted in his article méthode naturelle des végétaux (1824)
available in the Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles 14 the concepts of natural methods and
systems, the latter being described as systematic tables where the organisms were arranged
in a specific order. He aspired to develop a continuous natural classification of
the plant kingdom; the idea of continuity is also omnipresent in his treatment of the
natural method.
To complete this general introduction we want to give an additional explanation of
the difference in the meaning of the word “méthode” in French and “Methode” in
German. In a first sense, the German “Methode” and the French “méthode” are the
well-known elements of logic applied to natural history. For example P. F. Stevens wonders
whether A.-L. de Jussieu’s method can be interpreted through René Descartes’s
Discours de la méthode (1637), with the tools of the Cartesian science 15. However, the
French “méthode” has a second meaning, precisely at the time of A.-L. de Jussieu; the
word was used in fact to characterize the temporary and imperfect draft of a natural
10 Ebenda: p. 67. Concerning A. P. De Candolle and the notions of method and system see Drouin, J.-M.
Classification des sciences et classification des plantes chez Augustin-Pyramus De Candolle, in: Revue de
synthèse, 1-2, 1994: pp. 149-165.
11 M. Adanson was certainly disregarded because of his rejection of C. von Linné’s binomial nomenclature,
but may be regarded as one of the precursors of phyletic systematists in the 20 th century. See Stuessy, T. F.
Plant taxonomy. New York : Columbia Univ. Press, 1990.
12 Thus A.-P. De Candolle defined the term charakter: „Un caractère est une des manières d´envisager les organes en
général, appliquer à un organe en particulier. „ See De Candolle, A.-P. 1813, op. cit. note 17: p. 150.
13 De Jussieu, A.-L. 1789, op. cit. note 3 : p. xxxv.
14 De Jussieu, A.-L. [Artikel] Méthode naturelle des Végétaux, in: Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles. Strasbourg
& Paris, F. G. Levrault, 1824, vol. 30: pp. 426-468.
15 See Stevens, P. F. 1994. op. cit. note 3: pp. 60-62 and Planchen, A. Classification, evolution and the nature of
biology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992: pp. 109-111.
Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 10 (2005)
119