Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology

132
Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 10 (2005)
Nicolas Robin & Frank Hellwig
remained useful, and the not yet completed “méthode naturelle”. Nevertheless he
thought that morphological studies were a key to natural classifications.
In his first textbook entitled System der Botanik (1808), 77 Fr. S. Voigt introduced, after
a precise analysis of plant morphology and physiology, the descriptions of remarkable
natural families followed by a short introduction of the “méthode naturelle” developed
by Bernard and A.-l. de Jussieu 78. The basic natural taxonomic category in Fr. S. Voigt’s
outline of a natural system is the species, which he called Gattung 79 following Johann
Friedrich Blumenbach’s terminology 80. The next higher groupings are the genera (Pflanzengeschlecht
in his System der Botanik (1808), Geschlecht Bl. in his Lehrbuch der Botanik (1827)),
and these encompass species with similar shapes of flowers and fruits. These features are
considered to be of special value because they are more constant than the features of the
vegetative parts of the plants which are easily influenced by environmental factors. Fr. S.
Voigt was convinced that genera as well as species were natural categories. 81 In this regard
he takes a standpoint different from that of J.-H. Jaume Saint-Hilaire, who considered
the genera as mere arbitrary divisions of higher taxa that were introduced in order
to structure the vegetable kingdom in a better way 82. If several genera were similar in
their general construction and in the most significant parts of fructifications they composed
an order or a natural family (Ordo seu familia naturalis). Fr. S. Voigt’s basic systematic
approach is agglomerative rather than divisive. This may reflect his reception of J. W.
von Goethe’s metamorphosis of plants 83. To Fr. S. Voigt the interpretation of the metamorphosis
of the whole plant kingdom would have been useful also in determining the
relative weighting of characteristics, he wrote:
“Daher suchen er [A.-L. de Jussieu] und seine Nachfolger eine gewisse Stufenfolge in dem relativen
Werthe der Charactere aufzufinden und zu bestimmen, und würde, wenn er die deutsche
Lehre von der Metamorphose damals gekannt hätte, gewiss diese mit Begierde dazu benutzt haben.”
84
77 Voigt, F. S. System der Botanik. Jena, Akademische Buchhandlung, 1808.
78 See the chapter Uebersicht mekwürdiger Pflanzenfamilien in: Voigt, Fr. S. 1808. Op. cit. supra: pp. 351-384. These
were well received, particularly in the Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung; see the review about Voigt’s System der
Botanik in: Algemeine Literatur Zeitung, 325, 1808: pp. 562-563.
79 “Dass ich mit Blumenbach Species durch Gattung, (und nichr, wie Einige, denen es beliebte, unsere Sprache
zu ihrer Bequemlichkeit nach Willkühr zu verbessern, durch Art, und Genus durch Gattung) übersetze,
darüber verweise ich diejenigen, welche von der Richtigkeit dieser Übersetzung noch nicht überzeugt seyn
sollten, auf das, was Hr. Hofr. Blumenbach in der Vorrede zu seinem Handbuch der Naturgeschichte gesagt
hat.” Voigt, Fr. S. 1808. Op. cit. supra: p. 113.
80 Voigt, Fr. S. 1808. Ebenda: p. 188.
81 Ebenda: p. 190.
82 See Stevens, P. F. 1994. Op. cit. note 3: p. 96.
83 See Breidbach, O. Friedrich Siegmund Voigt – Botanik nach Lesart von Goethes Metamorphosenlehre, in:
Goethe-Jahrbuch, 2004: pp. 238-252 and Hellwig, F. & Robin, N. Fr. S. Voigts Idee der Metamorphose des
Pflanzenreichs. In preparation.
84 Voigt, Fr. S. 1827. Op. cit. note 2: pp. 208-209.