FOOTNOTE:

[1] Darwin and Modern Science.

[ROBERT MORISON AND JOHN RAY]

1620-1683 1627-1705

By SYDNEY HOWARD VINES

Early systems of classification—Theophrastus—the Herbalists—Cesalpino's De Plantis—Caspar Bauhin's Pinax Theatri Botanici—Morison—narrative—Botany at Oxford—the garden established—Jacob Bobart the elder—Morison's Historia Plantarum—completion by the younger Bobart—personal characteristics—Morison's works—the Praeludia—the Hallucinationes—the Dialogus—principles of method in his Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distributio Nova—posthumous publication of System—indebtedness to Cesalpino—Linnaeus' estimate of Morison—Ray—narrative—first attempt at a System—quarrel with Morison—the Methodus Nova—Dicotyledones and Monocotyledones—Linnaeus' criticisms—later Systems—the French school—Morison and Ray compared.

The literature of Botany can be traced back to a quite respectable antiquity, to the period of Aristotle (b.c. 384-322) who seems to have been the first to write of plants from the truly botanical point of view. Unfortunately, his special treatise on plants—θεωρία περὶ φυτῶν—is lost; and although there are many botanical passages scattered throughout his other writings (which have been collected by Wimmer, Phytologiae Aristotelicae Fragmenta, 1836), yet none of them gives any indication of what his ideas of classification may have been. An echo of them is perhaps to be found in the works of his favourite pupil, Theophrastus Eresius (b.c. 371-286), who among all his fellows was the most successful in pursuing the botanical studies that they had begun under the guidance of the master. Theophrastus left behind him two important, though incomplete, treatises on plants, the oldest that have survived: the more familiar Latin titles of which are De Historia Plantarum and De Causis Plantarum. The latter is essentially physiological, touching upon agriculture to a certain extent: the former is mainly morphological, structural, descriptive, and it is here that the first attempt at a classification of plants is to be found. In writing the Historia, Theophrastus was endeavouring, as a Greek philosopher rather than as a botanist, to "give account of" plants; and in order to do so he found it necessary to arrange them in some kind of order. Seizing upon obvious external features, he distinguished (Lib. i. cap. 5) and defined Tree, Shrub, Undershrub and Herb, giving examples; adding, however, that the definitions are to be accepted and understood as typical and general, "for some may seem perhaps to deviate" from them. Simple as was this mode of arrangement, Theophrastus further simplified it in the course of his work, by treating trees and shrubs as one group, and undershrubs and herbs as the other.

Plate I

[back]

Robert Morison (Robertus Morison)

Quæ Morisone viro potuit contingere major
Gloria, Pæonium quam superasse genus?

Ipse tibi palmam Phœbus concedit Apollo,
Laureaque est capiti quælibit herba tuo.
Archibaldi Pitcairne M.D.

It may seem, at first sight, singular that a lecture purporting to discuss the state of systematic botany in England during the 17th century should begin with a reference to the botany of the Greeks. The explanation is that the elementary classification introduced by Theophrastus persisted throughout the 17th century; the use of the groups Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs came to an end only in the 18th century, with the advent of Linnaeus. It seems almost incredible, but it is a fact, that the lapse of the nearly 2000 years that separated Theophrastus from Morison marked no material advance in the science of classification. Botanical works, when they were something more than commentaries on Theophrastus or Dioscorides, took cognizance of little else than the properties, medicinal or otherwise, of plants, and their economic uses.

A growing perception of the essential resemblances observable among plants can be traced, however, in the later Herbals, as they became less medical and economic and more definitely botanical. Thus, in the well-known work of Leonhard Fuchs (Fuchsius), De Historia Stirpium Commentarii, 1542, the plants are described in alphabetical order, without any reference to their mutual relation. But in Kyber's edition of Jerome Bock's (Tragus) De Stirpium Nomenclatura, etc., Commentariorum Libri Tres, published in 1552 (with a preface by Conrad Gesner), there is an attempt at a grouping of plants, though no principles are enunciated and no names are given to the groups, which resulted in the bringing together of labiate, leguminous, gramineous and umbelliferous herbs. The Cruydtboeck of Rembert Dodoens (Dodonaeus), 1554, marks much the same stage of progress, whereas the Nova Stirpium Adversaria of Pierre Pena and Matthias de l'Obel (Lobelius), issued in 1570, is a distinct step in advance. Here some idea is incidentally given of the principles that have been followed in the arrangement of the plants, but still no name is attached, as a rule, to the resulting groups. The work begins with an account of the herbaceous plants which, in modern terminology, are monocotyledonous: and at the end of the section (p. 65) de l'Obel thus explains what he has done:—"Hactenus comparendo quot potuimus plantarum genera, quarum effigies et naturae ordinis consequutione ita sibi mutuo haererent, ut et facillime noscerentur et memoriae mandarentur, a Gramineis, Segetibus, Harundinibus, ad Acoros, Irides, Cyperos, hincque Asphodelos bulborum tuniceorum Caepaceorumve naturam praetervecti sumus." Cruciferous, caryophyllaceous, labiate and umbelliferous herbs are also segregated to some extent in the course of the work: and the leguminous herbs are brought together into a definite group, "Alterum Frugum genus nempe graminis Trifolii et Leguminum," which is really the origin of the modern N. O. Leguminosae: though a few altogether foreign species, such as species of Oxalis, Anemone Hepatica, Jasminum fruticans L., and species of Thalictrum, are included among the trifoliate forms, and Dictamnus Fraxinella among the "Leguminosa." The Stirpium Historiae Pemptades Sex sive Libri XXX of Dodoens, published in 1583, shows considerable progress in classification as compared with his Cruydtboeck of 1554, more particularly in the recognition, apparently for the first time, of umbelliferous plants as a distinct group in a chapter headed De Umbelliferis Herbis.

Possibly these attempts to introduce some sort of system into Botany may have been inspired by the teachings of Conrad Gesner, that universal genius, who lived about this time (1516-1565). Though but fragments of his botanical writings have survived, it is clear from the much-quoted passage in a letter of his dated Nov. 26, 1565 (Epistolae Medicae, 1577, p. 113) that he too was seeking for the basis of a natural system of classification and that he thought he had found it in the flower and the fruit:—"Ex his enim notis (a fructu, semine and flore) potius quam foliis, stirpium naturae et cognationes apparent."

Evidently at this period classification was in the air, and at length it began to precipitate and to crystallise in the work of Andrea Cesalpino (Caesalpinus: 1519-1603), Professor in the University of Pisa, whose De Plantis Libri XVI, published in 1583, is one of the most important landmarks in the history of systematic Botany. Here for the first time a system is propounded which is based definitely upon morphological observation. Cesalpino turns to the "fructification," that is the flower and the fruit, for his distinguishing characters. "Enitamur igitur," he says (Lib. i. cap. xiv.), "ex propriis quae fructificationis gratia data sunt, plantarum genera investigare"; and he goes on to point out that the observable differences here depend on number, position and form of the parts:—"ad organorum constitutionem tria maxime faciant, scilicet, partium numerus, situs et figura." These principles he illustrates as follows:—the flower being the outermost covering of the fruit, a single flower may cover a single seed, as in the Almond: or a single seed-receptacle as in the Rose: or two seeds, as in the Umbelliferae: or two seed-receptacles, as in the Cress: or three seeds, as in the genus Tithymalus (Euphorbia); or three receptacles, as in the Bulbaceous plants (petaloid Monocotyledons): or four seeds, as in Marrubium: or four receptacles, as in Euonymus: or many seeds, as in the Cichoriaceae: or many receptacles, as in the Coniferae. The feature of the relative position of the parts which he especially emphasizes is whether the flower is inserted upon the top of the fruit (i.e. is epigynous): or is inserted lower around the fruit (hypogynous or perigynous). Moreover, the form of the seed, of the seed-receptacle, and of the flower, is to be taken into account.

The practical application of these principles led to a classification of plants which, though of course imperfect, was at least a good beginning. Following Theophrastus, Cesalpino divided plants into two main groups, (1) Trees and Shrubs, (2) Undershrubs and Herbs: each of these groups was then subdivided according to the nature of the fruit and of the flower. It will be observed that Cesalpino, as was customary at that time, designated as "seeds" all indehiscent one-seeded fruits, such as nuts and the varieties of achene. The following abstract will suffice to give an adequate idea of the results obtained. The author's own words are given as nearly as possible.

In spite of its inherent imperfections and of errors of observation, the method succeeded in bringing together a considerable number of the plants dealt with, into groups which are still regarded as natural. For instance, among the trees and shrubs, the leguminous genera, and the coniferous genera, respectively, are so brought together: and among herbs, the leguminous, umbelliferous, cruciferous and composite genera. Moreover, though many of Cesalpino's sections consist of what seems to be a heterogeneous assemblage of plants, yet they include groups of closely allied genera, representing several of the natural orders of more modern times, which his method was incapable of distinguishing. With all its shortcomings, the method produced a classification of plants which has proved to have been natural in no slight degree.

The very numerous botanical works which were published in the century after the appearance of Cesalpino's De Plantis afford evidence that his system of classification did not meet with an enthusiastic reception. Though his plant-names were generally quoted, his arrangement was entirely ignored: in fact the very idea of classification seems to have gradually faded out of the minds of botanists, whose attention was more and more engrossed with the description of the new species that the rapid extension of geographical discovery was bringing to light. This condition of the science is well illustrated by the most authoritative systematic work that the 17th century produced, the great Pinax Theatri Botanici (1623) of Caspar Bauhin (1560-1624), a work which contains about six thousand plant-names, and was the product of forty years' labour. It might be expected that in such a work, special attention would have been paid to classification, that at least the best available system would have been used: as a matter of fact, the arrangement adopted is far inferior to that of Cesalpino and may be described as simply haphazard for the most part. The general lines of it are indicated by the following enumeration of the contents of the twelve Books of which the work consists; the modern equivalents of his plant-names being given.

Summary of the Arrangement adopted in Bauhin's Pinax.

Liber I. Gramineae, Juncaceae, Cyperaceae, Typhaceae, Ephedra, Equisetum, Hippuris, Asphodelus, some Iridaceae, and Zingiberaceae.

Liber II. De Bulbosis; bulbous Monocotyledons, including Orchids with Orobanche, Monotropa, and Lathraea.

Liber III. Olera et Oleracea; most Cruciferae, Polygonaceae, and Chenopodiaceae, with some of the Compositae.

Liber IV. Other Compositae; Delphinium, Fumaria; the Umbelliferae (so named); Valeriana.

Liber V. Some Solanaceae, Papaveraceae, and Ranunculaceae; Gentiana, Plantago, Pyrola, Statice, Sarracenia, Nymphaea, Trapa, Sagittaria, Arum, Asarum, and some Compositae.

Liber VI. Viola; Cheiranthus, Matthiola, Alyssum, Hesperis; some Caryophyllaceae; Polygala, Specularia, Glaux, Linum, Cuscuta, most Labiatae and Scrophulariaceae; Primula, &c.

Liber VII. Lysimachia, Epilobium, Oenothera, Lythrum, some more Labiatae, Scrophulariaceae, and Caryophyllaceae; Boraginaceae; some Compositae; Alisma; Scabiosa; Hypericum; Crassulaceae; Aloe; Euphorbia.

Liber VIII. Various climbing plants; Convolvulus, Smilax, Humulus, Vitis; Clematis, Lonicera, Hedera; and Cucurbitaceae: also Apocynaceae, Asclepiadaceae, some Liliaceae, Malvaceae, Rosaceae, Leguminosae, with other genera scattered among them, as Aristolochia, Dentaria, Paeonia, Geranium.

Liber IX. Rubiaceae; Ruta, Thalictrum; the remainder of the Leguminosae.

Liber X. Cryptogams in general: with a few scattered Phanerogams such as Drosera, Oxalis sensitiva, L. (Herba viva foliis polypodii); Mimosa pudica (Herba Mimosa foliis Foenugraeci sylvestris); Lemna; and the remaining Compositae, the Thistles, with Eryngium, Dipsacus, and Acanthus.

Liber XI. Trees and Shrubs: Leguminous and Rosaceous; also Rhus, Laurus, Fraxinus, Juglans, Castanea, Fagus, Quercus, Corylus, Tilia, Ulmus, Betula, Alnus, Populus, Acer, Platanus, Ricinus.

Liber XII. Mespilus, Crataegus, Berberis, Ribes, Sambucus, Ficus, Opuntia, Morus, Arbutus, Laurus, Daphne, Cistus, Myrtus, Vaccinium, Buxus, Olea, Salix, Ligustrum, Phillyrea, Rhamnus, Rubus Rosa, Tamarix, Erica, Coniferous plants, Palma.

There was but one author, during this period, who made any material contribution to the science of classification, and that was Joachim Jung of Hamburg (1587-1657). Jung is best known by his Isagoge Phytoscopica (1678, ed. Vaget), the most philosophic and scientific treatise on plants that had appeared since the time of Aristotle, which is the foundation upon which the whole superstructure of plant-morphology and descriptive botany has since been erected. But it was in his De Plantis Doxoscopiae Physicae Minores (1662, ed. Fogel) that he expressed his views on systematic Botany. He did not propound a system of his own, but he sought to arrive at the principles upon which a classification should be based, with the logical result that he rejected the time-honoured Theophrastian division of plants into Trees and Herbs. Though Jung failed to produce any immediate impression upon the Botany of his time, he powerfully influenced the great developments which took place in the eighteenth century. It so happened that Ray, as he mentions in his Index Plantarum Agri Cantabrigiensis (1660), had obtained through Samuel Hartlib a MS. of the whole or part of Jung's Isagoge, which seems to have impressed him so much that he included many of Jung's morphological definitions in the glossary appended to the Index; and he subsequently embodied the Isagoge in the first volume of his Historia Plantarum (1686). It was from Ray's Historia that Linnaeus learned the morphological principles and terminology of Jung which were the basis of his own work in descriptive Botany, and rendered possible the elaboration of his system of classification. But, in spite of Jung, the venerable division of plants into Trees and Herbs continued to hold its own for a time. As will be seen, it was still adhered to by Morison and by Ray, even after it had been shown to be quite untenable by Rivinus (Introductio Generalis in Rem Herbariam) in 1690, and did not finally disappear until the time of Linnaeus.

It was just when systematic Botany had fallen back to its lowest level that Morison appeared upon the scene. He had been born at Aberdeen in 1620, and had there graduated Master of Arts with distinction by the time he was eighteen years old. His further studies in the natural sciences were interrupted by the Civil War, in which he took part on the Royalist side, being severely wounded in the battle of the Brig of Dee (1644). He fled to France, and there resumed his preparation for a scientific career with such success that he obtained, in 1648, the degree of Doctor of Medicine at the University of Angers. From that time onwards he devoted himself entirely to the study of Botany, which he pursued in Paris under the guidance of Vespasian Robin, Botanist to the King of France. In 1650 Morison was appointed by the Duke of Orleans, on Robin's recommendation, to take charge of the royal garden at Blois, a post which he held for ten years. The Duke of Orleans, shortly before his death early in 1660, had occasion to present Morison to his nephew King Charles II who was about to return to his kingdom. Soon after the Restoration, the King summoned Morison to London; and in spite of tempting offers made to induce him to remain in France, Morison obeyed the summons and was rewarded with the title of King's Physician and Professor of Botany with a stipend of two hundred pounds a year. During his tenure of these offices Morison found time to complete his first botanical work, the Praeludia Botanica, which was published in 1669; the same year in which he was appointed Professor of Botany in the University of Oxford.

A few words may be devoted, at this point, to the rise and progress of Botany in that University. In the year 1621, Lord Danvers (afterwards Earl of Danby), thinking "that his money could not be better laid out than to begin and finish a place whereby learning, especially the Faculty of Medicine, might be improved," decided to endow the University with a Physic Garden, such as was already possessed by various Universities on the Continent. With this object, he gave a sum of £250 to enable the University to purchase the lease of a plot of ground, about five acres in extent, situated "without the East Gate of Oxford, near the river Cherwell." A great deal of labour had to be expended upon the land after it had been secured: it was so low-lying that, as Anthony Wood says, "much soil was conveyed thither for the raising of the ground to prevent the overflowing of the waters" at the expense of Lord Danvers, who also caused to be built what Baskerville describes as "a most stately wall of hewen stone 14 foot high with 3 very considerable Gates thereto, one whereof was to the cost of at least five hundred pounds." The work proceeded but slowly, in consequence of the troublous times through which the country was passing, so that it was not completed until 1632. Even then the actual installation of the garden was delayed. About 1637 the Earl of Danby seems to have arranged with the well-known John Tradescant to act as gardener, but there is no evidence that Tradescant ever discharged the duties of the post: moreover, he died in the following year. Very shortly after this, though the exact date is not known, the Earl appointed Jacob Bobart to take charge of the Garden. Jacob Bobart was a German, born at Brunswick about the year 1599. He was an excellent gardener: under his care the garden flourished so well that the catalogue which was published in 1648 anonymously, though doubtless drawn up by Bobart, enumerated no less than 1600 species of plants in cultivation.

It had been the intention of Lord Danby to provide the University not only with a Physic Garden and a Gardener, but also with a Professor of Botany. For this purpose he bequeathed certain revenues: "but so it was that the times being unsettled, and the revenues falling short, nothing was done in order to the settling of a Professor till 1669." When the establishment of the Professorship had become possible, the University proceeded to elect Morison the first Professor of Botany, being influenced by the reputation which his recently published Praeludia Botanica had secured for him. Thus, after the lapse of nearly half a century, was Lord Danby's design completely realised.

Morison's chief occupation at Oxford was the preparation of his long promised magnum opus, the Historia Plantarum Universalis Oxoniensis. It was planned on a most extensive scale, and proved to be a laborious and costly undertaking. Morison impoverished himself in the preparation even of the one volume of it that appeared in his lifetime, though his many friends provided the cost of the 126 plates of figures with which it is illustrated, and the University advanced considerable sums of money. The work was to have been issued in three parts: the first part was to be devoted to Trees and Shrubs, and the other two parts to the Herbs. The volume published by Morison in 1680, and described as Pars Secunda, deals with only five out of the fifteen sections into which he classified herbaceous plants, although it extends to more than 600 folio pages. In the preface he gives as his reason for beginning with the Herbs rather than with the Trees and Shrubs, that he wished to accomplish first the most difficult part of his task lest, in the event of his death before the completion of the Historia, it should fall into the hands of incompetent persons. He did not live to finish his great undertaking. In November, 1683, he was in London on business connected with it: as he was crossing the Strand near Charing Cross, he was knocked down by a coach, and was so severely injured that he died on the following day. He was buried in the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields.

His unfinished work did not, as he feared, fall into incompetent hands. It was entrusted by the University to Jacob Bobart the younger, who on the death of his father in 1679, had succeeded him as Keeper of the Physic Garden, and who also succeeded Morison as Horti Praefectus, but not as Professor Botanices; the Professorship remained in abeyance for nearly forty years. After much difficulty and delay, a second and final instalment of the Historia, the Pars Tertia, dealing with the remaining ten sections of herbaceous plants, was published in 1699, as a folio of 657 pages with 168 plates. The material at Bobart's disposal was fairly abundant, consisting of Morison's MS. of four more of his sections of Herbs, with notes upon the remaining six sections. But even so, the task of completion was a laborious one, for it involved the incorporation of references to the very many descriptions of new plants that had been published since Morison's death: it has been generally admitted that Bobart discharged it with commendable skill.

Plate II

[back]

Great Gate of the Physic Garden Oxford: the elder Bobart in the foreground

The Pars Prima, that was to have been devoted to Trees and Shrubs, was never written. All that exists to represent it, is a stout MS. volume in the Library at the Botanic Garden, Oxford, apparently in Bobart's hand-writing, containing a classification and an enumeration of the species of trees and shrubs, which may possibly have been written with a view to publication.

A most interesting feature of Bobart's Pars Tertia is the Vita Roberti Morisoni M.D. with which the book opens, written by one of Morison's intimate friends, Dr Archibald Pitcairn. It is the source of all the available information regarding Morison up to the time of his coming to Oxford; after that time much may be gathered concerning him from the records of the University. It is also a loyal defence of Morison and his system of classification against the criticisms to which, even then, he had been subjected. It concludes with a personal account of Morison, in which he is described as being "vigorous in body, having a mind trained to every kind of study, of ingenuous manners, calling a spade a spade, eager for true knowledge, a despiser of filthy lucre, considering the public advantage rather than his private gain." A portrait of him, here reproduced, forms the frontispiece to the volume.

Such was the life of the man whose botanical works are now to be considered: works that are not nearly so numerous as they are considerable, as will be seen from the following enumeration and brief description of them.

Praeludia Botanica, 1669: a small 8vo volume of about 500 pages, which consists of the following parts:

(pp. 1-347): Hortus Regius Blesensis Auctus.

(pp. 351-459): Hallucinationes Caspari Bauhini in Pinace, item Animadversiones in tres Tomos Universalis Historiae Johannis Bauhini.

(pp. 463-499): Dialogus inter Socium Collegii Regii Gresham dicti et Botanographum Regium.

Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distributio Nova, per Tabulas Cognationis et Affinitatis, ex Libro Naturae observata et detecta, 1672.

Plantarum Historiae Universalis Oxoniensis Pars Secunda, seu Herbarum Distributio Nova per Tabulas Cognationis et Affinitatis ex Libro Naturae observata et detecta, 1680.

The three distinct treatises of which the Praeludia Botanica consists were written probably at different times, though published simultaneously in 1669. The first of them is an alphabetical catalogue, comprising about 2600 species, of the plants in the Royal garden at Blois when under Morison's care: 260 of the species are marked as new, and are fully described in an appendix. But the chief interest of the Hortus Regius Blesensis Auctus lies in the dedication to King Charles II. Morison here narrates how, whilst at Blois, he had framed a system of classification; how the King's Uncle, the Duke of Orleans, had promised to undertake the publication of a book to illustrate the system on an adequate scale, and how the sudden death of the Duke in 1660 had destroyed all such hopes; and he ends by appealing to the King to give him the patronage that he so much needed. "Quod si annuere hoc mihi digneris," he wrote, "polliceor Britanniam vestram cum methodo exactissima (quae est naturae ipsius) imposterum, in re Botanica gloriari posse, quemadmodum Italia, Gallia, Germania, superiori saeculo, sine methodo, in Scientia Botanica gloriatae sunt." But the King does not appear to have been moved by this dazzling promise. Morison evidently did not suffer from any lack of confidence in himself or in his method, of which he speaks on a previous page of the dedication, as "methodus nova a natura data, a me solummodo (citra jactantiam) observata: a nullo nisi meipso in hunc usque diem detecta, quamvis mundi incunabilis sit coeva," language which can hardly be described as modest. And yet, curiously enough, Morison gives not the slightest indication of the principles of this altogether new and original method of classification.

The second treatise, the Hallucinationes, is a searching and acute criticism of the published works of the brothers Bauhin: of the Pinax of Caspar, and of the Historia of John. Though he acknowledges in the preface the great value of their botanical labours, Morison did not fail to set out in detail the mistakes that they had made in both classification and nomenclature, and to make corrections which were, for the most part, justified. Probably it was the critical study of the works of the Bauhins that led Morison to frame a system of classification of his own.

The third and last treatise is the Dialogus: a dialogue between himself, as Botanographus Regius, King's Botanist, and a Fellow of the Royal Society, on the theme of classification. Here again Morison asserts the superiority of his own method: "Methodum me observasse fateor: estque omnium quae unquam adhuc fuerunt exhibitae, praestantissima et certissima quippe a natura data." But he still fails to give any definite account of it: all that he says amounts merely to this, that the "nota generica" is not to be sought in the properties of a plant, nor in the shape of its leaves, as had been suggested by earlier writers, but in the fructification, that is, in the flower and fruit (essentiam plantarum desumendam ... a florum forma at seminum conformatione).

The mention of a system of classification based on the form of the leaf evoked from Botanographus a pointed allusion to a book recently published by a Fellow of the Royal Society in which such a classification had been used, with the following severe comment: "Ego tantum confusum Chaos: illic, de plantis legi, nec quicquam didici, ut monstrabo tibi et lapsus et confusionem, alias." The book so criticised was the encyclopaedic work edited by Dr John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, and published by the Royal Society in 1668, entitled, "An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language," to which John Ray had contributed the botanical article 'Tables of Plants.' This criticism was the beginning of the unfriendly relations between Morison and Ray, of which some further account will be given subsequently.

Another point of interest in the Dialogus is the definite assertion (p. 488) that Ferns are 'perfect' plants, having flower and seed (quia habent flores, qui fugiunt quasi obtutum, et semina quasi pulvisculum in dorso alarum), an assertion which was repeated with even greater emphasis in Morison's preface to his edition of Boccone's Icones at Descriptiones Rariorum Plantarum etc. (Oxon. 1674), in opposition to the views of earlier writers, Cesalpino in particular. Cesalpino had, it is true, said of the group in which he had placed the Ferns and other Cryptogams, "quod nullum semen molitur" (De Plantis, p. 591): but he had added, in the same paragraph,—"ferunt enim in folio quid, quod vicem seminis gerit, ut Filix et quae illi affinia sunt." It is a question if Morison was much nearer the truth than Cesalpino.

It is in the preface of his Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distributio Nova (1672) that Morison first gave a definite statement of the principles of his method, in the following terms: "Cumque methodus sit omnis doctrinae anima: idcirco nos tam in hac umbelliferarum dispositione, quam in universali omnium stirpium digestione, quam pollicemur, notas genericas et essentiales a seminibus eorumque similitudine petitas, per tabulas cognationis et affinitatis disponentes stirpes exhibebimus. Differentias autem specificas a partibus ignobilioribus, scilicet radice, foliis et caulibus, odore, sapore, colore desumptas adscribemus, singulis generibus singulas accersendo species: ita species diversa facie cognoscibiles, sub generibus intermediis: genera intermedia sub supremis, notis suis essentialibus et semper eodem modo sese habentibus distincta militabunt. Hic est ordo a natura ipsa stirpibus ab initio datus, a me primo jam observatus."

It is not necessary to discuss in detail the merits of Morison's work on the Umbelliferae. It will suffice to say that it was published as a specimen of the great Historia that he had in preparation—trigesimam operis quod intendimus partem—so that the learned world might have some idea of what they were to expect from the completed work "quemadmodum aiunt ex ungue leonem"; and further, that it was the first monograph of a definite group of plants, and is remarkable for the sense of relationship between the genera that inspires it. The Umbelliferae constituted Sectio IX among the fifteen sections in which Morison distributed herbaceous plants.

At length, in 1680, appeared the Pars Secunda of the Plantarum Historia Universalis Oxoniensis in which work Morison's long-expected method of classification was to be exhibited and justified. However in this respect it proved to be disappointing: partly because it was so limited in its scope, dealing with but five of his fifteen Sectiones of herbaceous plants: and partly because it did not contain any complete outline of his system. It is most singular that, although he wrote so much, Morison should have died without having published any more definite information concerning his system of classification than what has been here cited.

Morison's influence did not, however, cease with his death; his tradition was maintained by the publication in 1699 of the Pars Tertia of the Historia, under the editorship of Bobart. This volume threw some welcome light upon Morison's system, inasmuch as it completed the description of the herbaceous plants, and gave a clear statement, in the form of a Botanologiae Summarium, of the classification resulting from the application of Morison's principles to these plants. But, even so, the revelation of the system still remained incomplete, in the absence of any account of the trees and shrubs.

It was not till nearly forty years after Morison's death, not until Bobart too was dead, that a full statement of Morison's method was published. In 1720 there appeared at Oxford a small tract of but twelve pages, the Historiae Naturalis Sciagraphia, containing an account of a complete system of classification, which agrees in all essentials, so far as herbaceous plants are concerned with that adopted by Morison and by Bobart in their respective volumes of the Historia: and, as regards trees and shrubs, with that in the MS. volume by Bobart which has been already mentioned. The tract is anonymous, but the matter that it contains is Bobart's work, whether it was written by himself or by some one who had access to his papers. This classification may be accepted as being essentially that of Morison, though somewhat modified by Bobart, who had undoubtedly been influenced by Ray's systematic writings which had appeared meanwhile. It is of such interest that it may be reproduced here, somewhat compressed, with an indication of the modern equivalents of the groups.

This then is the Morisonian method,—or at least the nearest available approximation to it—in its entirety. The effect of its application to the Vegetable Kingdom can hardly be accepted as a sufficient justification of the superlatives with which its author had introduced it. Of course it is not reasonable to judge this method, or any other method of the past, by the standard of botanical knowledge as at present existing: it can only be fairly judged from the standpoint of its author. What has to be considered is (1) the soundness of the principles adopted, and (2) the consistency in the application of those principles. The conclusion to be drawn from such a consideration of the foregoing table is that Morison was more fortunate in his theory than in his practice. In spite of his statement that the "nota generica" should be taken from the fructification, many of the Sectiones are based upon quite other characters: such are (among the Herbs) the Scandentes, the Corymbiferae, the Culmiferae. Had Morison adhered more closely to his own principles, the results would have been more in accordance with his sanguine anticipations: such a heterogeneous group as Sectio V, for instance, would have been impossible. It was, perhaps, on account of its inconsistency that Morison's method never came into general use, although it was adopted enthusiastically by Paul Amman, Professor at Leipzig, in his Character Plantarum Naturalis (ed. 1685); and, with some modifications, by Christopher Knaut, Professor at Halle, in his Enumeratio Plantarum circa Halam Saxonum sponte provenientium, 1687, as well as by Paul Hermann, Professor at Leyden, in his Florae Lugduno-Batavi Flores (ed. Zumbach), 1690.

Morison's writings evoked severe contemporary criticism, more on account of their manner than of their matter. His constant reference to the "Hallucinationes" of Caspar Bauhin especially, was considered to be offensive even if warranted, for every botanist admitted a debt of gratitude to the author of the Pinax. Equally resented was Morison's oft-repeated statement that he had drawn the principles of his classification, not from the works of other writers, but from the book of Nature alone. It was urged against him that he had failed to do justice to his predecessors, particularly to Cesalpino: and it must be admitted that there is unfortunately some truth in this allegation. Morison's indebtedness to Cesalpino is suggested by the fact that the nature of the fruit, and in a secondary degree that of the flower, was the basis of both their methods. From a comparison of the two systems, as set out in this lecture, their fundamental resemblance can be traced through the many differences of detail. Since Morison does not quote Cesalpino in his books, it might be inferred that possibly he had not read him. But there is convincing evidence to the contrary. There is the fact that Morison's preface to the Historia contains a sentence taken verbatim, without acknowledgment, from the dedication of Cesalpino's De Plantis. Further, there is in the Library at the Oxford Botanic Garden a copy of the De Plantiscontaining many marginal notes which could not have been written by any one but Morison. The explanation of the position is probably this, that Morison regarded his classification as so great an advance upon that of Cesalpino, that he did not think it necessary to acknowledge what still remained of the earlier writer's work: but in any case his omission to mention Cesalpino was a grave error of judgment.

At this point it may well be asked, what are Morison's actual merits if, as it appears, he borrowed the leading principles of his classification from his predecessors? The most satisfactory answer to this question is that which is provided by those who lived and wrote at times but little removed from his own. Thus Tournefort, in his Elemens de Botanique (1694: p. 19) speaking of the work of Cesalpino and of Colonna, said—"Peut-être que la chose seroit encore à faire si Morison ... ne s'étoit avisé de renouveller cette metode. On ne sauroit assez louer cet auteur; mais il semble qu'il se loue lui-même un peu trop: car bien loin de se contenter de la gloire d'avoir executé une partie du plus beau projet que l'on jamais fait en Botanique, il ose comparer ses découvertes à celles de Cristoffe Colomb, et sans parler de Gesner, de Cesalpin, ni de Columna, il assure en plusieurs endroits de ses ouvrages, qu'il n'a rien apris que de la nature même." Later, in his Institutiones Rei Herbariae (1700, p. 53) Tournefort expressed the same opinion in somewhat different words:—"Legitima igitur constituendorum generum ratio Gesnero et Columnae tribui debet, eaque fortè in tenebris adhuc jaceret, nisi Robertus Morisonus ... eam quasi ab Herbariis abalienatam renovasset, instaurasset, et primus ad usus quotidianos adjunxisset, qua in re summis laudibus excipiendus, longe vero majoribus si a suis abstinuisset."

The estimate formed of him by Linnaeus is clearly stated in a letter addressed to Haller probably about the year 1737: "Morison was vain, yet he cannot be sufficiently praised for having revived system which was half expiring. If you look through Tournefort's genera you will readily admit how much he owes to Morison, full as much as the latter was indebted to Cesalpino, though Tournefort himself was a conscientious investigator. All that is good in Morison is taken from Cesalpino, from whose guidance he wanders in pursuit of natural affinities rather than of characters" (see Smith's Correspondence of Linnaeus, vol. ii. p. 281). If only Morison had frankly assumed the role of the restorer of a method that had been forgotten, instead of posing as its originator, his undoubted merits would have met with their just recognition, and his memory would have been free from any possible reproach.

Before Morison's method of classification could have come into general use, there was a rival system in the field, which was destined to achieve success, and in its course to absorb all that was good in Morison's: this was the system of John Ray.

Ray was born at Black Notley, near Braintree, Essex, on Nov. 29, 1628; so that he was not much junior to Morison. He studied and graduated with such distinction at the University of Cambridge, that he was in due course elected a Fellow of, and appointed a Lecturer in, his College (Trinity). Here he remained until 1662, when he resigned his Fellowship on his refusal to sign the declaration against 'the solemn league and covenant' prescribed by the Act of Uniformity of 1661. After leaving Cambridge he spent some years travelling both in Britain and on the Continent; and eventually settled at his birth-place, Black Notley, where he died on Jan. 17, 1704-5.

During his residence in Cambridge, Ray devoted much of his time to the study of natural history, a study which afterwards became his chief occupation. The first fruit of his labours in this direction was the Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam nascentium, published in 1660, followed in due course by many works, for he was a prolific author, botanical and zoological as well as theological and literary, of which only those can be considered at present which contributed materially to the development of systematic botany.

Plate III

[back]

John Ray (Joannes Rajus)

The first such work of Ray's was his contribution of the Tables of Plants to Dr John Wilkins's Real Character and a Philosophical Language, published in 1669, which has already been mentioned in the course of this lecture ([p. 21]). The following is a summary of Ray's first attempt at a system of classification. He begins by distinguishing Herbs, Shrubs, and Trees. Proceeding to the detailed classification of Herbs, he divides them into Imperfect "which either do want or seem to want some of the more essential parts of Plants, viz. either Root, Stalk, or Seed," the Cryptogamia of Linnaeus; and Perfect "having all the essential parts belonging to a Plant." The Perfect Herbs are arranged in three main groups according to (1) their leaves, (2) their flowers, (3) their seed-vessel, each group being subdivided in various ways.

Of Shrubs.

Of Trees.

Such is the classification of which Morison spoke so slightingly in the Dialogus: though the character of the leaf is not made so much of as his criticism implied. There is no need to dwell upon the strained relations that arose between Ray and Morison; it may suffice to say that Morison laid himself open to the charge of jealousy, and that Ray never forgave the criticisms, both written and oral, that Morison had made on him. Those who are interested in the unfortunate quarrel will find an account of it, with a most loyal apology for Morison, in Blair's Botanical Essays (1720). Ray may certainly be acquitted of plagiarism which is suggested by Blair, for he had no opportunity of studying Morison's system in its entirety: since, as already explained, it was not published in a complete form until the appearance of the Sciagraphia in 1720, long after Ray's death. When Ray wrote the Tables of Plants for Dr Wilkins, not even the Preludia Botanica had been published: the only work that he produced after the publication of both parts of Morison's Historia was the last edition of his Methodus Plantarum (1703) which displays principles of classification of which Morison had no conception.

The Tables of Plants does not illustrate any very definite principles. It was a tentative production, written to order: in fact, it appears (as explained in the preface to his Methodus emendata, 1703) that Ray, in writing it, was not free to follow what he really believed to be the order of Nature. It is interesting, however, as being the first systematic work published in England. The classification is based, to some extent, upon the character of the fruit, a principle borrowed, probably not from Morison but directly from Cesalpino. Before long it was superseded by a much more comprehensive and ambitious attempt, the Methodus Plantarum Nova, issued in 1682, two years after Morison's Historia (Pars Secunda).

Ray's Methodus Plantarum Nova, 1682.

De Herbis.

Genusi.Imperfectae, flore et semine carentes: Algae, Fungi.
"ii.Semine minutissimo: Bryophyta, most Pteridophyta.
"iii.Acaules Epiphyllospermae, vulgo Capillares: Filices.
"iv.Flore imperfecto, sexu distinctae: e.g. Humulus, Cannabis, Spinachia, Urtica.
"v.Flore imperfecto, sexu carentes: e.g. Chenopodium, Alchemilla, Artemisia.
"vi.Flore imperfecto, Monospermae, semine triquetro: Polygonaceae.
"vii.Flore composito, Lactescentes: Compositae, Cichorieae.
"viii.Flore discoide, Papposae: Compositae, most Asteroideae and Senecionideae.
"ix.Flore discoide nudo, Papposae: Compositae, Eupatorium, Senecio, Gnaphalium.
"x.Flore composito discoide, Corymbiferae: Compositae, some Anthemideae.
"xi.Flore discoide nudo, Corymbiferae: Compositae, the rest of the Anthemideae.
"xii.Flore ex flosculis fistularibus, Capitatae: Compositae, Cynareae.
"xiii.Flore composito, Anomalae: Dipsacus, Scabiosa, Echinops, Armeria.
"xiv.Flore perfecto, seminibus nudis singulis: Valeriana, Thalictrum, Statice, Agrimonia, &c.
"xv, xvi.Umbelliferae.
"xvii.Stellatae dictae: Rubiaceae.
"xviii.Asperifoliae: Boraginaceae.
"xix, xx.Verticillatae: Labiatae.
"xxi, xxii.Semine nudo, Polyspermae: acheniferous Ranunculaceae and Rosaceae, Malvaceae.
"xxiii.Pomiferae: Cucurbitaceae.
"xxiv.Bacciferae: e.g. Smilax, Bryonia, Tamus, some Solanaceae, &c.
"xxv.Multisiliquae seu Corniculatae: folliculate Ranunculaceae, Sedum, Dictamnus, &c.
"xxvi, xxvii, xviii { Flore monopetalo uniformi: e.g. Hyoscyamus,
{ Gentiana, Convolvulus, Campanula.
{ Flore monopetalo difformi: e.g. Impatiens,
{ Aristolochia, most Scrophulariaceae.
"xxix, xxx, xxxi.Flore tetrapetalo uniformi siliquosae: Cruciferae.
"xxxii.Flore tetrapetalo uniformi, Anomalae: e.g. Papaver, Ruta, Plantago, Veronica.
"xxxiii-vi.Flore papilionaceo: Leguminosae.
"xxxvii.Flore pentapetalo aut polypetalo, foliis conjugatim dispositis: Caryophyllaceae, Cistaceae, Hypericaceae.
"xxxviii.Flore pentapetalo aut polypetalo, foliis nullo aut alterno ordine dispositis: e.g. Portulaca, Viola, Reseda, Geranium, Linum.
"xxxix.Flore pentapetaloide, Anomalae: e.g. Primula, Asclepias, Erythraea, Verbascum.
"xl, xli.Culmiferae: Gramineae.
"xlii.Graminifoliae non culmiferae: Cyperaceae, Juncaceae.
"xliii-v.Radice bulbosa: bulbous Monocotyledons.
"xlvi.Bulbosis Affines: e.g. Iris, Aloe, Orchidaceae, Araceae, Cyclamen.
"xlvii.Anomalae et sui generis: e.g. Potamogeton, Nymphaea, Callitriche, Trapa, Stratiotes, Sagittaria, Cuscuta, Adoxa, Polygala.

De Arboribus.

Genusi.Pomiferae: Pyrus, Mespilus, Citrus.
"ii.Pruniferae: Prunus, Cornus, Olea, Palma.
"iii.Bacciferae: e.g. Myrtus, Laurus, Buxus, Arbutus, Ilex, Juniperus, Taxus.
"iv.Nuciferae: e.g. Juglans, Corylus, Quercus, Castanea, Fagus.
"v.Coniferae: Pinus, Cedrus, Abies, Cupressus, Larix, Betula, Alnus.
"vi.Lanigerae: Platanus, Tamarix, Salix, Populus.
"vii.Siliquosae: leguminous trees, Syringa.
"viii.Vasculis seminum membranaceis et Anomalae: Ulmus, Fraxinus, Carpinus, Tilia, Acer.

De Fruticibus.

Genusi.Bacciferi sempervirentes: e.g. Vaccinium, Ruscus, Hedera, Viscum, Juniperus.
"ii. " foliis deciduis, non spinosi: e.g. Vitis, Lonicera, Cornus, Sambucus.
"iii. " foliis deciduis, spinosi: Crataegus sp., Ribes sp., Rosa, Berberis, &c.
"iv.Seminibus nudis, aut vasculis siccis inclusis: e.g. Vitex, Rhus, Spiraea, Erica.
"v.Floribus papilionaceis: e.g. Acacia, Genista, Cytisus, Colutea.
"vi.Suffrutiscentes: a miscellaneous collection of species.

A comparison between the classification of the Methodus Nova and that of the Tables of Plants shows that whilst he left the Trees and the Shrubs almost unaltered, Ray remodelled his arrangement of the Herbs. Whereas, in the Tables, he had proceeded along three distinct lines of classification indicated by the characters of leaf, flower, and seed-vessel respectively, all regarded as equally important; in the Methodus, the leaf-character is subordinated to those of flower and fruit, and these are not kept distinct but are combined; a fundamental change of principle which is no doubt to be attributed to Morison's criticisms on the Tables. As Ray put it in his Preface: Methodus haec differentias sumit a similitudine et convenientia partium praecipuarum, radicis puta, floris et ejus calicis, seminis ejusque conceptaculi. The result is that many of the sub-divisions consist of groups of plants which are really natural, the precursors of several of the recognized Natural Orders of Phanerogams; such as Polygonaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Compositae, Umbelliferae, Rubiaceae, Boraginaceae, Labiatae, Cucurbitaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Gramineae. The principles adopted were capable of yielding even better results, had they been more rigorously applied and had the investigation of the plants been more minute. For instance, in genera xxi and xxii, with a little more attention to floral characters, the Ranunculaceous might have been separated from the Rosaceous genera, and all of them from the Malvaceae: similarly in genera xxvi-xxviii, the Scrophulariaceous, and possibly also the Campanulaceous genera, might have been segregated. One of the principal achievements is the recognition of the group Stellatae (Rubiaceae) as independent of, but related to, the Umbelliferae. For this, as well as other features, Ray was indebted to Cesalpino (conf. [p. 11]), as he acknowledges in his Preface. Nor does Ray fail to acknowledge his obligations to Joachim Jung, and to Morison whose Preludia and Historia he cites.

But if Ray's Methodus Nova owed something to Morison's Historia (Pars secunda), at a later stage the Historia (Pars Tertia) was even more indebted to the Methodus Nova. It is striking to observe how many of the groups constituted in the Pars Tertia and in the Sciagraphia (see [p. 23]) agree with those of Ray. It is this close association, amounting almost to mutual dependence, of the systems of these two botanists, that makes comparative criticism of them an impossibility. Their relative position may, in fact, be summed up in the statement that both of them adopted the principles of Cesalpino, and that Ray eventually proved to be more successful than Morison in their application.

The Methodus Nova is something more than a system of classification. The systematic part of the work is preceded by five Sectiones which are morphological essays bearing the following titles: I. De Plantarum seminibus observationes quaedam generales: II. De Foliis Plantarum seminalibus dictis: III. De Plantula seminali reliquisque semine contentis: IV. De Floribus Plantarum, eorumque partibus et differentiis: V. De Divisione Plantarum generali in Arbores, Frutices, Suffrutices at Herbas. Beginning with the last, it is a discussion of the propriety of retaining the old Theophrastian sub-divisions: Ray agreed with Jung (see [p. 15]) that they are popular rather than accurate and philosophical, but he retained them on the ground of expediency. The fourth Sectio is an outline of the morphology of the flower based upon Jung's Isagoge which Ray had received in MS. from Dr John Worthington who had obtained it from Samuel Hartlib, as is explained in the Preface. The first three Sectiones are of peculiar interest: they give an account of Ray's observations upon seeds and seedlings, with quotations from Malpighi's recent work on the same subject (Anatomes Plantarum, Pars Prima, 1675; Pars altera, 1679), recognizing the fact that the seedlings of some plants have two seed-leaves or cotyledons (as Malpighi first called them), those of others only one, a fact which came to be of great systematic importance.

The classification of the Methodus Nova was maintained by Ray in his Historia Plantarum (t. i, 1686), as well as in both the first (1690) and second (1696) editions of his Synopsis Methodica Stirpium Britannicarum, somewhat improved and more compact in form. His ultimate views were expressed in the Methodus Plantarum emendata et aucta, published in 1703 not long before his death. In many respects this final form of his system is a great improvement upon that of 1682; more especially in the adoption of the number of the seed-leaves as a systematic character. Ray, it is true, limited the application of this character to herbaceous plants, as he had not brought himself to give up the old categories of Herbs, Shrubs and Trees: nevertheless, he founded in this work the groups of Dicotyledones and Monocotyledones which persist, though materially altered as to their content, to the present day.

Ray's Methodus Emendata et Aucta, 1703.

De Herbis.

Flore Destitutae.

Genusi.Submarinae: Algae, &c.
"ii.Fungi.
"iii.Musci: Bryophyta with Lycopodium.
"iv.Capillares: Filices.
Herbae sui generis: Ophioglossum, Pilularia, Salvinia, Salicornia, &c.

Floriferae. Dicotyledones.

"v.Flore stamineo: e.g. Urticaceae, Polygonaceae, Chenopodiaceae, &c.
"vi-ix.Flore Composito seu aggregato: Compositae, with Dipsaceae, Eryngium, Globularia.
"x.Flore simplici, semine nudo solitario: e.g. Valeriana, Mirabilis, Agrimonia.
"xi.Umbelliferae.
"xii.Stellatae: Rubiaceae.
"xiii.Asperifoliae: Boraginaceae.
"xiv.Verticillatae: Labiatae.
"xv.Semine nudo, Polyspermae: e.g. Alisma, Ranunculus, Potentilla.
"xvi.Pomiferae: Cucurbitaceae.
"xvii.Bacciferae: Bryonia, Tamus, Arum, Polygonatum, Solanum, &c.
"xviii. Multisiliquae: folliculate plants, e.g. Delphinium, Asclepias, Sedum.
"xix.Vasculiferae Flore monopetalo: (capsulate Gamopetalae).
Regulari; Campanulaceae, Primulaceae, Malvaceae, Gentianaceae, &c.
Irregulari; Scrophulariaceae, Aristolochia, Acanthus, &c.
"xx.Tetrapetalae Siliquosae et Siliculosae: Cruciferae.
Anomalae; Papaver, Euphorbia, Epilobium, &c.
"xxi.Flore Papilionaceo, sive Leguminosae.
"xxii.Pentapetalae Enangiospermae sive Vasculiferae: (capsulate Polypetalae), e.g. Caryophyllaceae, Cistaceae, Hypericaceae, Geraniaceae, Violaceae.
Monocotyledones.
Genusxxiii.Graminifoliae Tricapsulares, radice bulbosa, tuberosa, fibrosa:
Flore fructus basi cohaerente; Liliaceae.
Flore summo fructui insidente; Iridaceae, Amaryllidaceae.
Bulbosis Affines: Cyclamen, Orchidaceae, Zingiberaceae.
"xxiv.Graminifoliae Flore stamineo; Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Typhaceae.
"xxv.Anomalae aut Incertae Sedis: e.g. Nymphaea, Trapa, Epimedium, Sarracenia, Piper, &c.

De Arboribus Et Fruticibus:

A. Flore a Fructu remoto: (diclinous or dioecious plants).

Genusi.Coniferae: Abies, Pinus, Cedrus, Cupressus, Larix, Betula, Alnus.
"ii.Non-Coniferae:
Floribus racematim dispositis stamineis: Buxus, Pistacia.
" in fasciculos congestis: Empetrum.
Juliferae: nuciferae: Juglans, Corylus, Carpinus, Quercus, Fagus.
piluliferae: Platanus.
lanigerae: Populus, Salix.
Bacciferae: Juniperus, Taxus, Morus.

B. Flore Fructui contiguo:

Genusi.Umbilicatae; flore summo fructui insidente:
Pomifera: Pyrus, Sorbus, Rosa, Punica, &c.
Bacciferae, Polypyrenae: Ribes, Sambucus, Hedera, &c.
" Monopyrenae: Viburnum, Cornus, &c.
"ii.Non-Umbilicatae; flore basi fructus cohaerente:
Pruniferae: Prunus, Olea.
Pomiferae: Citrus.
Bacciferae, Monopyrenae: Viscum, Daphne, Rhamnus sp.
" Polypyrenae: e.g. Vitis, Rubus, Ligustrum, Berberis, &c.
"iii.Fructu sicco, non Siliquosae: e.g. Acer, Fraxinus, Tilia, Ulmus, Rhus, Syringa.
"iv.Siliquosae Flore non papilionaceo: Cassia, Mimosa, Ceratonia, Nerium, &c.
"v.Siliquosae Flore papilionaceo: papilionaceous plants.
"vi.Anomalae: Ficus.
Foliis Arundinaceis: Monocotyledons; Palmaceae, Dracaena, Bambusa.

There can be no doubt that Ray was more fortunate than Morison in the impression that he produced upon contemporary botanists and upon those who immediately succeeded them. This, for instance, is what Tournefort said of him (Elemens de Botanique, 1694, p. 19): "Monsieur Ray sans faire tant de bruit a beaucoup mieux réussi que Morison. Sa modestie est louable, et l'Histoire des Plantes qu'il nous a donnée est une Bibliotheque Botanique, dans laquelle on trouve non seulement tout ce que les auteurs ont dit de meilleur sur chaque plante; mais encore les caracteres des genres y sont designez d'une maniere assez commode...." In the Classes Plantarum (1738) Linnaeus gave a somewhat formal approval of Ray's work: "Magna sunt opera J. Raji in Scientia Botanica, qui constantia summa, omnia, quae beneficio seculi innotuerant de plantis, manu plus quam ferrea descripsit." But perhaps a more genuine opinion is that expressed by Linnaeus in the letter to Haller from which his estimate of Morison has already been quoted (see [p. 27]): "You are here justly aware, that when the System of Ray was spoken of as perfectly natural, all botanists must have been blind, unless, like Dillenius, they hoped for a professorship, or were compelled, by the authority of the English, to give to Ray supreme honours. What was he? Undoubtedly an indefatigable man in collecting, describing, etc.; but in the knowledge of generic principles, less than nothing, and altogether deficient in the examination of flowers. I beg of you to compare the first edition of his Methodus with the second and third, where he has learned to take everything from Tournefort. I know not why the discoveries of Caesalpinus have escaped all observation, whilst everything has stupidly been ascribed to Ray" (Smith's Correspondence of Linnaeus, ii. p. 280-1). This rather severe criticism does not, however, seem to have prejudiced Haller against Ray, for in the former's well-known Bibliotheca Botanica (vol. i. p. 500, 1771), in speaking of the rapid progress of Botany in the latter part of the seventeenth century, he adds—"Multa pars horum incrementorum debetur Johanni Ray. Vir pius et modestus, V. D. M. maximus ab hominum memoria botanicus, ea felicitate usus est, ut totos quinquaginta annos dilecto studio ei licuerit impendere."

Ray's system also became more popular than that of Morison, and was in general use in England until the latter half of the eighteenth century, when it was gradually superseded by the Linnean method which was first applied to English botany in Dr J. Hill's Flora Britannica (1760).

Ray was never engaged in teaching any branch of natural history. Had there been, in his day, a Chair of Botany in the University of Cambridge, he would, no doubt, have occupied it: however, the professorship was not established until 1724, twenty years after his death. He might very well have been chosen to succeed Morison at Oxford: but, for some unstated reason, the professorship there was kept in abeyance for nearly forty years after the death of Morison.

As has been explained, Morison and Ray revived the forgotten labours of Cesalpino. The immediate result of the publication of their systems was to stimulate their colleagues on the continent of Europe to a noble emulation: there was scarcely a botanist of note who did not elaborate a system of his own. After suffering from too little work in the direction of classification, botany now began to suffer from too much: one after the other, system followed system in rapid succession. Those, for instance, of Christopher Knaut (1687), Paul Hermann (1690), Boerhaave (1710), Rivinus (1690-1711), Ruppius (1718), Christian Knaut (1716): and, in France, of Tournefort (1694, 1700), and of Magnol (1720). Then came the Methodus Sexualis of Linnaeus (Systema Naturae, 1735). The effect of the general adoption of Linnaeus' most useful but artificial method was the temporary arrest almost everywhere, except in France, of the quest of the natural system. Though this was the effect of the introduction of his method, it was not at all the intention of Linnaeus: for in his Classes Plantarum (1738, p. 485) he said, "Primum et ultimum in parte Systematica Botanices quaesitum est Methodus Naturalis." On the same page of that work he laid down, in a series of aphorisms, the principles upon which alone the construction of such a method can be successfully attempted; and he gave special emphasis to this one, that the classificatory characters should not be taken from a single structure but from all: "nec una vel altera pars fructificationis, sed solum simplex symmetria omnium partium." It was just because they had failed to formulate this principle that the earlier systematists,—whether Fructists, as Cesalpino, Morison, Ray, Knaut and Hermann; or Corollists, as Rivinus and Tournefort; or Calycists, as Magnol—were not more successful, and that their systems, even the Methodus emendata of Ray, were more or less artificial.

It was in France that the carving out, as it were, of the Natural Orders from the solid block of genera was carried on with the greatest success. This process had become much less difficult since Tournefort had begun to constitute genera in the modern sense of the term. Before his time the word "genus" had been applied indiscriminately to every kind of plant-group (see the systems of Cesalpino and Ray, [pp. 12], [32]): the largest groups were the summa genera; the smaller, the genera subalterna or infima. Tournefort limited the application of the term to the smallest groups of species, designating by the term Classe the largest groups which he subdivided into Sections (Elemens de Botanique, 1694). It was Linnaeus (Classes Plantarum, p. 485) who introduced the term Ordo to designate the subordinate groups of the classes.

Tournefort himself succeeded, by means of his corollist method, in distinguishing for the first time the following Sections, describing their flowers by terms which are now familiar as the names of natural orders; Flore Labiato, Cruciformi, Rosaceo, Caryophyllaceo, Liliaceo, Papilionaceo, Amentaceo; though these sections do not all exactly agree with the modern Natural Orders of similar designation. A remarkable, if not altogether successful, attempt in the same direction was Adanson's Familles des Plantes (1763), based upon the sound Linnean principle, "qu'il ne peut i avoir de Methode naturele en Botanicke, que celle qui considere l'ensemble de toutes les parties des Plantes." The number of species and varieties known in his day amounted to something over eighteen thousand: these, reduced into 1615 genera, he grouped into fifty-eight families. Several of those had been already more or less well defined; but most of them were entirely original, and not a few of them persist to the present day, though Adanson is not credited with all that are his due. His lack of method in naming his families, to say nothing of the fantastic nomenclature of his genera, made it necessary for other names to be preferred to his. Still some familiar names of natural orders are attributable to him, such as Hepaticae, Onagrae, Compositae, Caprifolia, Borragines, Portulacae, Amaranthi, Papavera, Cisti, though most of them have since undergone some change in their termination. In addition to these, there are several which would have been credited to Adanson, had it not so happened that they had also been suggested by Bernard de Jussieu: such are, Palmae, Aristolochiae, Myrti, Campanulae, Apocyna, Verbenae, Thymeleae, Gerania, Malvae, Ranunculi. Adanson was the first to publish these names (1763): but Bernard de Jussieu had made use of them as early as 1759 in laying out the Trianon Garden at Versailles, though they were not actually published until 1789, when all the 65 orders devised by him were included in the Genera Plantarum secundum Ordines Naturales disposita of his famous nephew Antoine Laurent de Jussieu. Here at last was a fairly complete natural system, consisting of one hundred natural orders arranged in fifteen classes, within the three great subdivisions, Acotyledones, Monocotyledones, Dicotyledones, constituting the framework of that which is accepted at the present day. It has undergone many modifications, of which the first and most important were those effected by A. P. de Candolle (Théorie Élémentaire, 1813), who, while he improved upon Jussieu in various ways, made the unfortunate, but happily unsuccessful, attempt to substitute "Endogenae" for "Monocotyledones" and "Exogenae" for "Dicotyledones." The system has proved itself capable of expansion to accommodate all the new genera and natural orders that have since been established: it has justified itself as a natural classification in its susceptibility to development in precision as well as in extent, and in that it has survived the many experiments made upon it during the first century of its existence.

The glory of this crowning achievement belongs to Jussieu: he was the capable man who appeared precisely at the psychological moment, and it is the men that so appear who have made, and will continue to make, all the great generalisations of science. Jussieu's achievement, like other great scientific achievements, would have been impossible without the labours and failures of his predecessors, of which some account has been given in this lecture. He himself attributed much of his success to the work of Tournefort, but it is clear that he owed at least as much to Ray: if he learned from the former the systematic importance of the gamopetalous and of the polypetalous corolla, he gleaned from the latter the value of the cotyledonary characters upon which are based his three primary subdivisions of the Vegetable Kingdom.

It has been necessary to go beyond the strict limits of the history of British Botany in order to make it clear to what extent and at what period our two distinguished fellow-countrymen contributed to the development of the natural system of classification. Enough has been said to establish the importance and the opportuneness of their contributions: if Pisa was glorified by the birth of Systematic Botany, and Paris by its adolescence, Oxford and Cambridge were honoured by its renascence. The question concerning the respective merits of Morison and Ray finds perhaps its most satisfactory answer in the words of Linnaeus (Classes Plantarum, 1747, p. 65):—"Quamprimum Morisonus artis fundamentum restaurasset, eidem mox suam superstruxit methodum Rajus, quam dein toties reparavit, usque dum in ultima senectute emendatam et auctam emitteret": Morison relaid the foundation upon which Ray built. As Linnaeus points out, Ray enjoyed the advantage of a very long period of productive activity: in the thirty-four years that separated his Tables of Plants from his Methodus Emendata et Aucta, he had time to revise and remodel his system. Morison, on the contrary, was prevented by unfavourable circumstances from beginning the publication of his Method until late in life, and he was not permitted to see more than a fragment of it issue from the press.

It is probable that Ray was more truly a naturalist than was Morison: for in addition to his works on Method, he published not only his Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam nascentium (1660), but also a Catalogus of British plants (1670, 2nd ed. 1677), almost the earliest work of the kind, only preceded by William How's Phytologia Britannica (1650), which developed into the first British Flora arranged systematically, the Synopsis Methodica Stirpium Britannicarum (1690, 2nd ed. 1696). Morison published nothing on field-botany; his volume of the Historia contains, it is true, occasional mention of plants found in or near Oxford, but the finder of them seems always to have been the younger Bobart. Ray included in the Synopsis a list of plants that had been communicated to him by Bobart, with whom he seems to have been intimate, and expressed his indebtedness to Bobart's botanical skill.

But whether the palm be bestowed upon the one or the other, the fact remains that both were men of exceptional capacity, and that both did good work for British Botany, raising it to a level which commanded the respect and admiration of the botanical world; from which, as the succeeding lectures of this course will show, it was not allowed to sink. What Linnaeus said of Morison may be applied equally to Ray,—"Roma certe non uno die, nec ab uno condebatur viro. Ille tamen faces extinctas incendit, a quibus ignem mutuati sunt subsequentes, quibus datum ad lucidum magis focum objecta rimare" (Classes Plantarum, p. 33).

[NEHEMIAH GREW]

1641-1712

By AGNES ARBER

Ancestry and Life narrative—his versatility—state of Botany—Grew and Malpighi—Grew's bona fides vindicated—The Anatomy of Vegetables Begun—seed structure—his treatise on the Root—its dedication—The Anatomy of Trunks—The Anatomy of Plants—illustrations—Grew's conception of cells and tissues—the plant as a textile fabric—analogy with the animal body—medullary rays—secondary thickening—his understanding of external morphology—physiological notions—suggestions for experiments—importance of the habitat—the sexes of flowers—floral and seed structure—estimate of his contributions to Botany.

Nehemiah Grew, who, with the Italian botanist Marcello Malpighi, may be considered as co-founder of the science of Plant Anatomy, lived in stirring and troubled times. His life[2] extended from 1641 to 1712; that is to say, he was born the year before King Charles I proclaimed war upon the parliamentary forces, and he lived through the Protectorate, the reigns of Charles II, James II, William and Mary, and the greater part of the reign of Queen Anne. He came of a stock remarkable for courage and independence of mind. His grandfather, Francis Grew, is described as having been a layman, originally of good estate, but "crush'd" by prosecutions for non-conformity in the High Commission Court and Star Chamber. Francis Grew had a son Obadiah, who was a student of Balliol, and entered the Church. When the Civil War broke out, he sided with the parliamentary party, but was by no means a blind adherent of Cromwell, with whom he is said to have pleaded earnestly for the life of King Charles I. In 1662 Obadiah Grew resigned his living, being unable to comply with the Act of Uniformity. Twenty years later, as a man of seventy-five, he was convicted of a breach of the Five Mile Act, and imprisoned for six months in Coventry Gaol. But though by this time his sight had failed, his spirit was indomitable. Whilst in prison, he dictated a sermon every week to an amanuensis, who read it to several shorthand writers, each of whom undertook a number of copies; it was then distributed to various secret religious meetings, at which it was read. Nehemiah Grew was Obadiah's only son, and it is a curious fact that the year 1682, which witnessed the father's imprisonment, was the year in which the son published his magnum opus, The Anatomy of Plants, prefaced by an Epistle Dedicatory to "His most sacred Majesty Charles II." So far as one can gather, Nehemiah Grew's career seems to have been singularly unaffected by the political crises that took place around him. The deliberate style of his writing certainly suggests a studious and unruffled life. He was an undergraduate at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and afterwards took his doctor's degree in medicine at Leyden, at the age of thirty. He seems to have been successful in his profession, and we learn from the sermon[3] preached at his funeral that he died suddenly, whilst still actively engaged in his practice. In the words of the sermon, "It was his Honour and Happiness, to be Serviceable to the last Moments of Life."

Plate IV

[back]

NEHEMIAH GREW (1701)

Portrait of Nehemiah Grew after the portrait by R. White which is reproduced in the Cosmologia Sacra, 1701

Before turning to Grew's botanical work, it may be worth while to refer very briefly to his writings on other subjects, showing as they do the remarkable versatility of his mind. He produced a series of chemical papers, and also pamphlets on the method of making sea-water fresh, and on the nature of the salts present in the Epsom wells. In 1681 appeared his Musæum Regalis Societatis, a catalogue raisonné of the objects in the Museum of the Royal Society, with which were bound up some contributions to animal anatomy. The Catalogue is a bulky volume, and it is hard to forbear a smile on reading that Grew dedicated it to one Colwall, the founder of the Museum, in order that the Royal Society "might always wear this Catalogue, as the Miniature of [his] abundant Respects, near their Hearts." As we should expect, this Catalogue is far more discursive than such a work would be if it were drawn up at the present day, though Grew takes credit to himself for not "medling with Mystick, Mythologick, or Hieroglyphick matters." He manages, however, to introduce some general remarks which are of interest. He realises, for instance, that it is possible to group living creatures in a way which has some significance, and that it is the business of the biologist to discover this grouping. He blames Aldrovandus for beginning his history of quadrupeds with the horse, because it is the most useful animal to man, and points out that Gesner's arrangement, which is purely alphabetical, is even less satisfactory. "The very Scale of the Creatures," he concludes, "is a matter of high speculation." It is tempting to quote largely from the Catalogue, but I will confine myself to one other remark of Grew's which is perhaps particularly applicable to-day, when the quotation of authorities is apt to become almost an obsession: "I have made the Quotations," he says, "not to prove things well known, to be true; ... as if Aristotle must be brought to prove a Man hath ten Toes."

Grew's last work was the Cosmologia Sacra[4], a folio volume occupied with a defence of Christianity, and an explanation of the author's views on the nature of the Universe. There is a copy in the British Museum, the earlier part of which is crowded with marginal and fly-leaf notes, in some cases initialled or even signed in full by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. One cannot help recalling Charles Lamb's humorous complaint that books lent to Coleridge were apt to be returned "with usury; enriched with annotations tripling their value ... in matter oftentimes, and almost in quantity not unfrequently, vying with the originals." Coleridge seems to have accepted Grew quite seriously as a thinker. In one of his manuscript notes we read, "It is from admiration of Dr N. Grew, and my high estimate of his Powers, that I am almost tempted to say, that the Reasonings in Chapt. III ought to have led him to the perception of the essential phænomenality of Matter." That these reasonings did not so lead him, must, I think, be attributed to the fact that Grew was above all things a naturalist, and Coleridge a philosopher, and that between the two an intellectual gulf is often fixed.

After this somewhat lengthy introduction, it is more than time to turn to our main subject,—the study of Nehemiah Grew's work as a botanist.

Botanical science was in a decidedly decadent condition when Grew entered the field. The era of the herbal was closing. The last English book of any importance which can strictly be included under this head, Parkinson's Theatrum Botanicum, was published the year before Grew was born, and a lull in this kind of work followed. It is true that Culpeper's Herbal appeared later, but this bombastic work was of no botanical value. It was reserved for Morison and Ray to open a new era in British Systematic Botany. At the same time, fresh inspiration was being breathed into the science from quite a different quarter. The herbalists studied plants primarily with a view to understanding their medicinal properties. Nehemiah Grew also approached Botany in the first instance from the medical standpoint, but it was his knowledge of anatomy which opened his mind to the possibility of similar work, with the bodies of plants, instead of those of animals, as the subject. He tells us that he was impressed by the fact that the study of animal anatomy had been carried on actively from early ages, whereas that of vegetable anatomy had been scarcely so much as contemplated. "But considering," he continues, "that both came at first out of the same Hand, and are therefore the Contrivances of the same Wisdom; I thence fully assured my self, that it could not be a vain Design, though possibly unsuccessful, to seek it in both."

Grew was drawn to the study of plant structure at the age of twenty-three, and seven years later he produced his earliest work on the subject, The Anatomy of Vegetables Begun, which was published by the Royal Society in 1672. It will be remembered that the Royal Society was then quite in its youth, its first beginnings only dating back to about 1645[5]. By a curious coincidence,—recalling the classic case of Darwin and Wallace at the Linnean Society,—on the very day that Grew presented his treatise in print, the Secretary of the Royal Society received Marcello Malpighi's manuscript dealing with the same subject. Priority can however be fairly claimed for the Englishman, since he had submitted his treatise to the Society in manuscript earlier in the year. This question of priority, and also the question whether Grew was guilty of plagiarism from Malpighi's writings, has been much discussed at different times. Schleiden[6] in particular brought forward charges of the most serious nature against Nehemiah Grew's good faith. These accusations were, however, dealt with in detail in a pamphlet by Pollender[7] in 1868, and shown to be groundless,—Schleiden's information about the circumstances being wholly inaccurate. There is now practically no doubt that Grew was an independent worker, and was only definitely indebted to Malpighi, in so far as he himself acknowledges it. In the preface to the second treatise, for instance, he mentions the Italian botanist, and remarks in speaking of the "Air-vessels"—"the manner of their Spiral Conformation (not observable but by a Microscope) I first learned from Him, who hath given a very elegant Description of them." If Grew had been a wholesale plunderer from Malpighi's writings, he would scarcely have been likely to have acknowledged indebtedness on a special point. It must be confessed, however, that judging by present-day standards of scientific etiquette, Grew should have referred more fully to the works[8] of the Italian author, in his final book, The Anatomy of Plants.

Plate V

[back]

Plate from Anatomy of Vegetables Begun, 1672

Figs. 1-4, Bean Seed; 1, Bean opened out; 2, Same to shew 'seminal root'; 3, 'Lobe' cut across; 4, 'Plume' cut across. Fig. 5, Gourd and Lupine Seeds. Figs. 15, 16, 19, Anatomy of Burdock

The Anatomy of Vegetables Begun contains more that is of interest from a morphological than from a strictly anatomical standpoint, according to the modern sense of the terms. In botanical language, the meaning of the word anatomy has become restricted since Grew's time, until it is now often used to denote microscopic detail alone. Grew devotes a good deal of space to the study of seed structure, dealing chiefly with such features as can be observed with the naked eye ([Pl. 5]). He invented the term "radicle" for the embryonic root, and used the word "plume" for the organ which we now speak of in the diminutive as the plumule. The cotyledons he called "lobes," but he recognised that they might in some cases appear above ground and turn green, becoming in his terminology "dissimilar leaves." He took the Bean seed as his principal type, and described it with the lucid picturesqueness which is so characteristic of his writing. It is, he says[9], "cloathed with a double Vest or Coat: These Coats, while the Bean is yet green are separable and easily distinguished. When 'tis dry, they cleave so closely together, that the Eye, not before instructed, will judge them but one; the inner Coat likewise (which is of the most rare contexture) so far shrinking up, as to seem only the roughness of the outer, somewhat resembling Wafers under Maquaroons. At the thicker end of the Bean, in the outer Coat, a very small Foramen presents it self: ... That this Foramen is truly permeable even in old setting Beans, appears upon their being soak'd for some time in Water: For then taking them out, and crushing them a little, many small Bubbles will alternately rise and break upon it."... The Plume "is not, like the Radicle, an entire Body, but divided at its loose end into divers pieces, all very close set together, as Feathers in a Bunch; for which reason it may be called the Plume. They are so close, that only two or three of the outmost are at first seen: but upon a nice and curious separation of these, the more interiour still may be discovered.... In a French Bean the two outmost are very fair and elegant. In the great Garden-Bean, two extraordinary small Plumes, often, if not always, stand one on either side the great one now describ'd." These two "extraordinary small plumes" are, in other words, the structures which we should now describe as buds in the axils of the cotyledons. Grew also notices that two simplified leaves are borne next above the cotyledons, or, as he expresses it, the "Plume" is "cooped up betwixt a pair of Surfoyls."

Grew deals also with the vernation of leaves, and methods of bud protection. He shews that their position and folding gives "two general advantages to the Leaves, Elegance and Security, sc. in taking up, so far as their Forms will bear, the least room; and in being so conveniently couch'd, as to be capable of receiving protection from other parts, or of giving it to one another; as for instance, First, There is the Plain-Lap, where the Leaves are all laid somewhat convexly one over another, but not plaited; being to the length, breadth and number of Leaves most agreeable; as in the Buds of Pear-tree, Plum-tree, etc. But where the Leaves are not thick set, as to stand in the Plain-lap, there we have the Plicature; as in Rose-tree, Strawberry, Cinquefoyl, Burnet etc." Grew refers also to rolled vernation, distinguishing between the "Fore-Rowl" and the "Back-Rowl." He thus remarks on the hairy covering characteristic of young leaves:—"the Hairs being then in form of a Down, alwayes very thick set, thus give that protection to the Leaves, which their exceeding tenderness then requires; so that they seem to be vested with a Coat of Frieze, or to be kept warm like young and dainty Chickens, in Wooll."

In the year following the publication of The Anatomy of Vegetables Begun, Nehemiah Grew produced a second treatise, under the title, "An Idea of a Phytological History Propounded. Together with a Continuation of the Anatomy of Vegetables; Particularly prosecuted upon Roots. And an Account of the Vegetation of Roots Grounded chiefly thereupon." In the dedications of his books Grew often reveals much of his own personality, and of his attitude towards science, although such revelations are apt to be mingled with the curious "conceits," and extravagant flattery, characteristic of the time. For instance he dedicated this particular work to the President and Fellows of the Royal Society, and after addressing to them some apologetic remarks about his own performance, he takes heart of grace from the thought that "how unpromising soever the Stock may be, yet the Fruit cannot but be somewhat matured upon which You are pleas'd to shine." It shews how strong the influence of fashion can be, when we find such bombast coming from the pen of a man who, only a few lines earlier, has written, with the perfection of simplicity, "Withal, I looked upon Nature as a Treasure so infinitely full, that as all men together cannot exhaust it; so no man, but may find out somewhat therein, if he be resolved to try."

The most important part of this treatise is the account of the comparative structure of roots, to which we will return later, when discussing Grew's anatomical conceptions. With regard to the position of the plant in the soil, he held somewhat mystical views. He believed that the "air-vessels" or tracheal elements, tended to draw the plant upwards, and the roots to pull it downwards. He says, for example, that the upper part of the roots of most seedlings ascend, because the first leaves being large and standing in the open air, "the Air-vessels in them have a dominion over the young Root, and so yielding themselves to the sollicitation of the Air upwards, draw the Root in part after them."

In 1675 appeared Grew's third botanical work, The Comparative Anatomy of Trunks, which dealt with stem structure, as the previous work dealt with root structure. There is, in the British Museum, a particularly interesting copy of this book, which is elaborately annotated in manuscript. From internal evidence it seems almost certain that this is the author's copy, corrected in his own handwriting[10]. Some, though not by any means all, of the corrections are identical with the alterations found in the 1682 edition. Above the first plate is written "vide ye Book Interleavd," and we may perhaps hazard the guess that in this copy we have Grew's first suggestions, whilst those which he finally adopted in the second edition were inserted in the interleaved copy whose whereabouts, if it still exists, is unknown at the present time.

[Pl. 6] shews a typical page from the annotated copy. At the foot we find the note "Air-Vessels out of Parenchyma, transformed, as Caterpillars to Flys," shewing that Grew had arrived at some idea of the formation of vessels. The whole section of the book to which this page belongs is very much remodelled in the 1682 edition, but the analogy just quoted is introduced and Grew proceeds accurately to describe the origin of vessels. "And as the Pith it self, by the Rupture and Shrinking up of several Rows of Bladders, doth oftentimes become Tubulary: So is it also probable, that in the other Parenchymous Parts, one single Row or File of Bladders evenly and perpendicularly piled; may sometimes, by the shrinking up of their Horizontal Fibres, all regularly breakone [sic] into another and so make one continued Cavity."

I have passed over these three treatises in a somewhat cursory fashion, because Nehemiah Grew's botanical work is perhaps better studied in his final pronouncement on the subject,—a folio volume published in 1682 under the title of "The Anatomy of Plants. With an Idea of a Philosophical History of Plants. And several other Lectures, Read before the Royal Society." This work consists of second editions of his three earlier treatises, largely rewritten, with a great deal of additional matter, including a section on the anatomy of flowers, and many new figures. Some of the plates are excellent, and especially remarkable for the way in which Grew shews the anatomy in drawings which represent the organ in three dimensions ([Pl. 7]). He himself laid great stress on this. In his own words, "In the Plates, for the clearer conception of the Part described, I have represented it, generally, as entire, as its being magnified to some good degree, would bear.... So, for instance, not the Barque, Wood, or Pith of a Root or Tree, by it self; but at least, some portion of all three together: Whereby, both their Texture, and also their Relation one to another, and the Fabrick of the whole, may be observed at one View." One cannot help wishing that botanists of the present day would more often take the trouble to illustrate their papers on this principle.

Plate VI

[back]

A page from The Comparative Anatomy of Trunks, Nehemiah Grew, 1675. The annotations are believed to be in the author's own handwriting. [British Museum. Printed Books Dept. (972.a.10)]

It is as a plant anatomist that Grew is chiefly famous, and it is important to try to realise exactly how far his conception of the anatomical structure of plants has been confirmed by more recent research. In appraising his work it must be remembered that he was essentially the pioneer of the science. It is true that some observations on plant anatomy occur in Robert Hooke's Micrographia, which was published six years before Grew sent in his first manuscript to the Royal Society; but Hooke never really attempted to make a systematic study of the subject. He had succeeded in greatly improving the microscope, and his chief interest was in applying his instrument to all kinds of bodies, vegetable and otherwise. Cork, charcoal, pith, etc., came under his observation, and to some extent he understood their structure. Grew acknowledges indebtedness to "the Learned and most Ingenious Naturalist M r Hook," and tells us that some of the results which Hooke obtained, inspired him to study certain of his plants again with a better microscope. For instance Hooke was able to see smaller pores in wood than Grew had been able to detect, but, with better glasses, he confirmed the accuracy of Hooke's observation. However, although Hooke must certainly be credited with priority in the discovery of the fact that plant tissues are characterised by a cellular structure, his botanical work, considered in its entirety, is of very slight significance compared with that of Grew.

Grew's clearest account of plant cells is perhaps to be found in his description of root parenchyma, which he compares to "the Froth of Beer or Eggs" or to "a fine piece of Manchet[11]," or again, to "a most curious and exquisitely fine-wrought Sponge." He quotes with approval Hooke's description of Elder-Pith as "an heap of Bubbles." It would be unsafe however to conclude that he had really arrived at what is known as the Cell Theory. His conception of the nature of plant tissues was not by any means that of the modern botanist. He believed the cell-walls to consist of inter-woven fibres, which were continuous from cell to cell. He did not consider that these fibres were invariably wrought together in such a fashion as to enclose bladder-like spaces, or cells; in some cases he held that the tissue was non-cellular, consisting simply of interwoven fibres. It was these hypothetical fibres, rather than the cells, which he regarded as of fundamental importance. His idea, which is somewhat confusing, is perhaps best understood from his comparison of plant structure with pillow lace. The "most unfeigned and proper resemblance we can," he writes, "at present make of the whole Body of a Plant, is, To a piece of fine Bone-Lace, when the Women are working it upon the Cushion, For the Pith, Insertions[12], and Parenchyma of the Barque, are all extream Fine and Perfect Lace-Work: the Fibres of the Pith running Horizontally, as do the Threds in a Piece of Lace; and bounding the several Bladders of the Pith and Barque, as the Threds do the several Holes of the Lace; and making up the Insertions without Bladders, or with very small ones, as the same Threds likewise do the close Parts of the Lace, which they call the Cloth-Work. And lastly, both the Lignous and Aer-Vessels, stand all Perpendicular, and so cross to the Horizontal Fibres of all the said Parenchymous Parts; even as in a Piece of Lace upon the Cushion, the Pins do to the Threds. The Pins being also conceived to be Tubular, and prolonged to any length; and the same Lace-Work to be wrought many Thousands of times over and over again, to any thickness or hight, according to the hight of any Plant. And this is the true Texture of a Plant."

Grew thus visualised the inner structure of the plant as a textile fabric, and the analogy between vegetable substance and woven threads seems to have been constantly present in his mind. The same idea also occurs, for instance, in the dedication of his magnum opus, where he says, "one who walks about with the meanest Stick, holds a Piece of Nature's Handicraft, which far surpasses the most elaborate Woof or Needle-Work in the World."

The notions at which Nehemiah Grew arrived on the subject of the vascular anatomy of plants were more advanced than his ideas on the ultimate nature of the tissues. There is no doubt that the comparison with animal anatomy, which was constantly in his mind, was on the whole helpful, though it led to some errors. The following paragraph, which occurs in the Cosmologia Sacra, seems to be an instance in which the analogy with the animal kingdom, helped him to take a broad view. "In the Woody Parts of Plants, which are their Bones; the Principles are so compounded, as to make them Flexible without Joynts, and also Elastick. That so their Roots may yield to Stones, and their Trunks to the Wind, or other force, with a power of Restitution. Whereas the Bones of Animals, being joynted, are made Inflexible."

In plants, as in animals, Grew looked for "vessels," and discovered by means of a simple experiment that continuous tubes, worthy of being called by this name, existed in the outer parts of the root, whereas the pith consisted of closed chambers. He cut a fresh root transversely, and then gently pressed the side of it with his finger nail. He was able to detect the vessels with the naked eye, and he observed that where they occurred, sap oozed out under pressure, but was sucked in again when the pressure was removed. The pressure also expressed a certain amount of sap from the pith, where vessels were absent, but here the sap was not sucked in again when the root was no longer squeezed, shewing that the liquid had only been forced out by the wounding of the cells. Had they been open tubes like the vessels, the release of the pressure would have caused the sap to disappear. Grew recognised that the vascular tissue of the root is centrally placed, whereas in the stem it is circumferential, and he points out that this difference is connected with the diverse mechanical needs of the two organs. It should also be noted that he discovered that concentration of the vascular system is characteristic of climbing plants, the wood, in his own words, standing "more close and round together in or near the Center, thereby making a round, and slender Trunk. To the end, it may be more tractable, to the power of the external Motor, what ever that may be: and also more secure from breaking by its winding Motion." He observed the radial arrangement of the xylem in the root, and offered an explanation of it, which is however scarcely free from obscurity. "Some of the more Æthereal and Subtile parts of the Aer, as they stream through the Root, it should seem, by a certain Magnetisme, do gradually dispose the Aer-Vessels, where there are any store of them, into Rays." Amongst other details of root anatomy, Grew discovered that all the tissues outside the central cylinder sometimes peel off when the root becomes old, or as he says, "the whole body of the Perpendicular Roots, except the woody Fibre in the Centre, becomes the second skin." Turning to stem structure, we find that he understood the difference in origin between stem buds and adventitious roots. The stem bud, he writes, "carries along with it, some portion of every Part in the Trunk or Stalk; whereof it is a Compendium." The adventitious root, on the other hand, "always shoots forth, by making a Rupture in the Barque, which it leaves behind, and proceeds only from the inner part of the Stalk." He describes the vascular bundles of the stem as "fibres" perforated by numerous "pores." It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that he had no understanding of their structure, at least as regards the xylem, for he goes on to say that "each Fibre, though it seem to the bare eye to be but one, yet is, indeed, a great number of Fibres together; and every Pore, being not meerly a space betwixt the several parts of the Wood, but the Concave of a Fiber." He noticed the medullary rays, for which he uses the expressive term "Insertions." "These Insertions," he says, "are likewise very conspicuous in Sawing of Trees length-ways into Boards, and those plain'd, and wrought into Leaves for Tables, Wainscot, Trenchers, and the like. In all which, ... there are many parts which have a greater smoothness than the rest; and are so many inserted Pieces of the Cortical Body; which being by those of the Lignous, frequently intercepted, seem to be discontinuous, although in the Trunk they are really extended, in continued Plates, throughout its Breadth."

Nehemiah Grew was interested in the process of secondary thickening, but he only arrived at a dim notion of how it took place. He grasped, however, the important point that in a tree trunk the meristematic zone lies near the surface, "the young Vessels and Parenchymous Parts" being formed annually "betwixt the Wood and Barque." He describes how, "every year, the Barque of a Tree is divided into Two Parts, and distributed two contrary ways. The outer Part falleth off towards the Skin; and at length becomes the Skin it self.... The inmost portion of the Barque, is annually distributed and added to the Wood; the Parenchymous Part thereof making a new addition to the Insertions within the Wood; and the Lymphæducts a new addition to the Lignous pieces betwixt which the Insertions stand. So that a Ring of Lymphæducts in the Barque this year, will be a Ring of Wood the next; and so another Ring of Lymphæducts, and of Wood, successively, from year to year." Exactly what Grew meant by the term "Lymphæduct" is not always clear. In some cases he seems to refer to the phloem and cambium by this name, and in other cases to the perimedullary zone. The annual rings in Oak, Elm, Ash, etc. came under his observation, and he remarks that the difference between the Spring and Autumn wood, as we should now call it, arises from the fact that "the Aer-Vessels that stand in the inner margin of each annual Ring, are all vastly bigger, than any of those that stand in the outer part of the Ring."

Plate VII

From Grew's Anatomy

Sheweth the Parts of a Goosberry

[back]

Part of a Vine Branch cut transversly, and splitt half way downe y^e midle

Grew did not enter into the minuter details of histology, except in his description of the spiral tracheids, to which, as we have seen, his attention was first called by Malpighi's observations. He speaks of the spiral as formed of "Two or More round and true Fibres, although standing collaterally together, yet perfectly distinct. Neither are these Single Fibres themselves flat, like a Zone; but of a round forme, like a most fine Thred." He makes the curious statement that the direction of the spiral is constant, being "in the Root, by South, from West to East: but in the Trunk, contrarily, by South, from East to West."

Although it is as an anatomist that Nehemiah Grew is best known, his grasp of external morphology is perhaps even more remarkable. His work on seed structure has already been quoted. He seems to have quite readily detected the true nature of modified stems. He examined for instance the thorns of the Hawthorn, and saw that their structure was axial. In his own words, they "are constituted of all the same substantial Parts whereof the Germen or Bud it self [is], and in a like proportion: which also in their Infancy are set with the resemblances of divers minute Leaves." It should be recalled that Albertus Magnus, the great scholastic philosopher, writing in the thirteenth century, distinguished between thorns and prickles, and noticed transitions between the former and leafy branches[13]. There is no reason to suppose, however, that our author was acquainted with the work of Albertus. Grew realised the nature of Bulbs, and points out that "the Strings only, are absolute Roots; the Bulb, actually containing those Parts, which springing up, make the Leaves or Body; and is, as it were, a Great Bud under ground."

Nehemiah Grew was interested in plant physiology, although the state of chemical and physical knowledge at the time did not allow of his advancing so far in this, as in the morphological side of the subject. His turn of mind, too, appears to have naturally led him to the study of form rather than that of function. As regards the absorption of water, his idea was simply that the roots sucked up water like a sponge, because the parenchyma was of a spongy nature. He supposed that the liquid was rendered purer by being strained through the skin, which, according to whether it was of a texture resembling brown paper, cotton, or leather, would produce a different effect upon any solution passing through it. His explanation of the ascent of the sap had really much in common with the "Kletterbewegung" theory propounded by Westermaier[14] almost exactly two hundred years later. Grew argued that "considering to what height and plenty, the Sap sometimes ascends; it is not intelligible, how it should thus ascend, by virtue of any one Part of a Plant, alone; that is neither by virtue of the Parenchyma, nor by virtue of the Vessels, alone." He pointed out that the parenchyma might suck up a liquid for a short distance, and also the vessels, like "small Glass-Pipes immersed in Water, will give it an ascent for some Inches; yet there is a certain period, according to the bore of the Pipe, beyond which it will not rise." To account for the rise he supposes that the vessels and parenchyma work together, the turgidity of the surrounding parenchyma cells both compressing the vessels, and thus causing the liquid in them to ascend, and also actually forcing some of their own contents into them.

Grew performed a few experiments, especially in the direction of plant chemistry. This was a natural line of work for a doctor, since the extraction of various vegetable substances had long been practised in medicine. He noticed, amongst other points, that the green infusion obtained by treating a plant with olive oil would, at least in the case of certain aromatic plants, appear of a green colour in a small drop, but of a red, or deep yellow, when a quantity of it was held up against a candle. In other words, Grew seems to have observed the characteristic fluorescence of chlorophyll.

He was interested also in the subject of geotropism, and succeeded in proving that there is an innate tendency for the root to grow down and the stem to grow up; and that it is not merely a case of the root seeking the soil, and the stem the air. His directions for performing the experiment are as follows:—"Take a Box of Moulds, with a hole bored in the bottom, wide enough to admit the Stalk of a Plant, and set it upon stilts half a yard or more above ground. Then lodg in the Mould some Plant, for Example a Bean, in such sort, that the Root of the Bean standing in the Moulds may poynt upwards, the Stalk towards the ground. As the Plant grows, it will follow, that at length the Stalk will rise upward, and the Root on the contrary, arch it self downward. Which evidently shews, That it is not sufficient, that the Root hath Earth to shoot into, or that its Motion is only an Appetite of being therein lodged, which way soever that be: but that its nature is, though within the Earth already, yet to change its Position, and to move Downwards. And so likewise of the Trunk, that it rises, when a Seed sprouts, out of the Ground, not meerly because it hath an Appetite of being in the open Aer; for in this Experiment it is so already; yet now makes a new Motion upwards."

Although Grew cannot be called a great experimenter, he frequently took the easier course of throwing out suggestions for such work. "The generation of Experiments" he describes as "being like that of Discourse, where one thing introduceth an hundred more which otherwise would never have been thought of." Amongst other proposals he recommends that trial should be made of growing plants in common water, snow water, milk, oil, wine, ink, etc., or in any of these with solid bodies, such as nitre and salt, dissolved in them. He points out that the effect both on the plant and on the liquid should be noted. The solid body should be weighed before solution, and then, after the experiment is over, the liquid should be evaporated and the solid again weighed.

Another instance in which he suggested an experiment, apparently without carrying it out, was in relation to the movements of the stems of non-climbing plants. He seems to have anticipated the nineteenth century discovery of nutation amongst plants other than climbers, though he stopped short of actually proving it. In his account of the Motions of Trunks he remarks, "The Convolution of Plants, hath been observed only in those that Climb. But it seems probable, that many others do also wind; ... Whether it be so, or not the Experiment may easily be made by tying a Thred upon any of the Branches; setting down the respect it then hath to any Quarter in the Heavens: for, if it shall appear in two or three Months, to have changed its Situation towards some other Quarter; it is certain proof hereof." He noticed that some plants twine "by South from East to West" and others "from West to East," and attributed this to their being respectively under the influence of the sun and the moon.

Whenever Grew's notions of plant physiology depended upon chemistry, they became, according to our modern ideas, extremely difficult to follow. He held, among many other curious beliefs, that salts obtained from any plant have a tendency to crystallise out in a form resembling that plant, and adds, as an illustration from the animal world, "though I have not seen it my self, yet I have been told by one that doth not use to phancy things, that the Volatile Salt of Vipers, will figure it self into the semblance of little Vipers."

The mystical belief that characteristic "principles" permeate all things, finds expression in his idea that the "frost flowers," sometimes to be seen on a window pane, are evidence that the air is impregnated with "Vegetable Principles." Another fact, which he brings forward in support of the same view, is that the ground or water, when exposed for some time to air, turns green. His explanation, in this latter case, was not far from the truth, for, as we now know, the greenness is due to the vegetation of minute algæ, which, in their dormant state, may be carried from place to place by the wind.

It is usual to regard Ecology as a very recent development of botanical science, but Nehemiah Grew seems to have been alive to the importance of the ecological standpoint,—though he did not describe it by this name. He writes "The proper Places also of Plants, or such wherein they have ... a Spontaneous growth, should be considered. And that as to the Climate; whether in one Colder, Temperate, or more Hot. The Region; Continent, or Island. The Seat; as Sea, or Land, Watry, Boggy, or Dry; Hills, Plains, or Vallies; Open, in Woods, or under Hedges; against Walls, rooted in them, or on their Tops; and the like."

Grew's most interesting contribution to science was, perhaps, his publication of the fact that the flowering plants, like animals, shew the phenomena of sex. He never, however, actually proved this contention in an experimental way. At the time that his earliest work[15] was published, he was frankly puzzled by the stamens, or, as he calls them, the "Attire." He recognised their use to insects, to whom flowers serve, in his own words, as "their Lodging and their Dining-Room." He also fully realised their value to man as increasing the beauty of the blossom, but he was broad-minded enough to feel that these must be secondary uses, and that "the primary and private use of the attire" remained to be discovered. Ten years later, in the second edition of his work, he tells us that it was suggested to him in conversation by Sir Thomas Millington that the stamens were the male organs. It seems probable that, although Grew gives Millington the credit for this discovery, he had really arrived at it independently, for he tells us that when Millington made the suggestion, he "immediately reply'd that [he] was of the same Opinion; and gave him some reasons for it, and answered some Objections, which might oppose them."

Besides his belief in the male nature of the stamen, Nehemiah Grew came to some rather mysterious conclusions as to their serving to draw off the redundant part of the sap, not needed to produce the seed. He also used the word "attire" for the florets of the Compositæ, but qualified it by calling the stamens the "seminal attire," and the florets of compound flowers the "florid attire." He says that "every Flower with the Florid attire" (or, as we should now say, "every composite flower") "Embosomes, or is, a Posy of perfect Flowers." He recognised the "globulets" (pollen grains) as being of the same nature as those in the anthers of simple flowers. He describes the disk florets with remarkable accuracy, but falls into the error of supposing that the pollen grains are in some cases originally produced by the style and stigmas, which he calls the "Blade," and which he did not recognise as part of the female organ. His figures make it clear that he mistook the stylar hairs for little stalks organically connecting the pollen grains and the style. In other cases, however, he observed that the pollen grains occurred on the inner side of what we now know as the staminal tube.

Grew enters into considerable detail as regards the structure of flowers, and it is only possible to mention here a few of the points to which he draws attention. He observed the frequent occurrence of capitate glandular hairs, which he describes as "like so many little Mushrooms sprouting out of the Flower," their heads sometimes exuding a "Gummy or Balsamick Juyce." He describes the varieties of aestivation of the floral leaves, and notes that, in the Poppy, the large size and fewness of the petals prevents their being folded into a compact body by any of the ordinary methods. "For which reason, they are cramb'd up within the Empalement[16] by hundreds of little Wrinckles or Puckers; as if Three or Four Fine Cambrick Handcherchifs were thrust into ones Pocket."

We have said something about Grew's work on seeds, in dealing with his first treatise. He was always much interested in this subject, and returned to it again in his later work. He mentions the mucilaginous testa possessed by many seeds, but which only becomes noticeable when they have been moistened. That of "Nasturtium Hortense" he describes as very large, "even emulous of the inner Pulp surrounding a Gooseberry-Seed." He suggests that the value of putting a Clary seed into the eye to bring out a foreign body, which may have lodged there, is due to the presence of the mucilaginous coat. The same seed is still, I believe, used for this purpose, under the name of "eye seed." Grew understood the difference between seeds with, and without endosperm, and gives perfectly clear representations of such albuminous seeds as Ricinus. He describes the cotyledons of the Dock as being immersed in the endosperm, "as in a Tub of Meal or a little pot of pure refin'd Mould, necessary for the first Vegetation of the Radicle."

Grew naturally reckoned the spores of Ferns among seeds. The seed-case of the Harts-tongue is, he says, "of a Silver Colour ... of a spherick Figure, and girded about with a sturdy Tendon or Spring, of the Colour of Gold: ... So soon as ... this Spring is become stark enough, it suddenly breaks the Case into two halfs, like two little cups, and so flings the Seed," of which "ten Thousand are not so big as a white Pepper Corn."

To give any kind of short summary of Grew's botanical work is well-nigh impossible. Some men are remembered for individual discoveries, and in such cases it is not difficult to give a précis of their contributions. But Nehemiah Grew is remembered because, contemporaneously with Malpighi, he actually created the science of plant anatomy,—a subject which, before his day, was practically non-existent. Modern botanists, conscious how small an addition to the fabric is now regarded as a satisfactory life-work, must stand amazed and somewhat humbled before the broad and sound foundations laid by this seventeenth century physician. It is no less than two hundred and forty years since Grew sent in his first treatise to the Royal Society, so it is scarcely wonderful that a number of his results have been rejected in course of time. It is far more remarkable that so many of his conclusions—and those the more essential ones—have been merely confirmed and extended by later work. Great however as were his actual contributions to botanical knowledge, they were perhaps less important than the far-reaching service which he rendered in helping to free biological thought from the cramping belief that the one and only object of the existence of the organic world was for the use and pleasure of man. Grew believed that the "Outward Elegancies of Plants" might be for the purpose of giving delight to the human race, but he was the first to point out that as the "Inward Ones, which, generally, are as Precise and Various as the Outward," are so seldom seen, their purpose can hardly be for this, but must be for the benefit of the plants themselves, "That the Corn might grow, so; and the Flower, so, whether or no Men had a mind, leisure, or ability, to understand how."