Chapter III: Introduction (2)

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 Plantis_containing 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.

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.

HERBS CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO THEIR LEAVES:

With long Leaves: Frumentaceous, "such whose seed is used by men for
food, either Bread, Pudding, Broth, or Drink" (Cereals): or
Non-Frumentaceous (other Grasses, Sedges, Reeds).

Gramineous Herbs of Bulbous Roots (Bulbous Monocotyledons).

Herbs of Affinity to Bulbous Roots (other Monocotyledons).

Herbs of Round Leaves (_e.g._ _Petasites_, _Viola_, _Pinguicula_,
_Drosera_).

Herbs of Nervous Leaves (_e.g._ _Veratrum_, _Plantago_, _Gentiana_,
_Polygonum_).

Succulent Herbs (_Sedum_, _Saxifraga_).

"Herbs considered according to the Superficies of their Leaves, or
their Manner of Growing":

more rough (_e.g._ _Borago_, _Anchusa_, _Echium_):

less rough (_e.g._ _Pulmonaria_, _Symphytum_, _Heliotropium_):

stellate leaves (_e.g._ _Asparagus_, _Galium_).

HERBS CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO THEIR FLOWERS: "having no seed-vessel
besides the Cup which covers the flower":

Herbs of Stamineous Flowers, "whose flower doth consist of threddy
Filaments or Stamina, having no leaves besides the _Perianthium_: or
those herbaceous leaves encompassing these stamina, which do not
wither or fall away before the seed is ripe"; and not of grassy leaves,
may be distributed into such whose seeds are

Triangular (Polygonaceae);

Round: "distinguishable by sex, of male and female; because from
the same seed some plants are produced which bear flowers
and no seeds, and others which bear seeds and no flowers"
(_e.g._ _Cannabis_, _Humulus_, _Mercurialis_): not distinguishable
by sex (_e.g._ Chenopodiaceae, Urticaceæ, Resedaceae).

Herbs having a Compound Flower not Pappous }
} (Compositae).
Pappous Herbs }

Umbelliferous Herbs (Umbelliferae, with _Valeriana_).

Verticillate Fruticose Herbs }
} (Labiatae).
Verticillate Not Fruticose Herbs }

Spicate Herbs (a curious medley, including _Dipsacus_, _Eryngium_,
_Echinops_, _Agrimonia_, _Circaea_, _Poterium Sanguisorba_, _Polygonum
Persicaria_, _Trifolium stellatum_, _T. arvense_, and _Potamogeton
angustifolium_).

Herbs bearing Many Seeds together in a Cluster or Button
(_e.g._ _Geum_, _Potentilla_, _Anemone_, _Ranunculus_, _Adonis_,
_Malva_).

HERBS CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO THEIR SEED-VESSEL:

Of a divided Seed-vessel, which may be called Corniculate (_Paeonia_,
_Dictamnus_, _Delphinium_, _Aquilegia_, _Aconitum_, _Geranium_,
_Scandix_).

Of an entire Seed-vessel:

Siliquous: Papilionaceous Climbing Herbs }
} (Papilionaceae).
Papilionaceous Herbs not Climbing }

Not papilionaceous (mostly Cruciferae).

Capsulate: bearing Flowers of Five Leaves (Caryophyllaceae,
Hypericaceae, _Euphorbia_, _Linum_, _Lysimachia_, _Ruta_,
_Nigella_).

whose flowers consist of three or four Leaves (some
Cruciferae, _Epimedium_, _Papaver_, _Verbena_, _Statice_,
_Veronica_).

Campanulate Herbs:

climbing (most Cucurbitaceae and Convolvulaceae):

erect (Campanulaceae, some Solanaceae, _Digitalis_).

Not campanulate (Primulaceae, Scrophulariaceae,
Acanthaceae, _Aristolochia_, _Vinca_).

Bacciferous herbs: may be distinguished according to their Qualities:

Esculent fruit: more pleasant (Strawberry),
less pleasant (Tomato).

Esculent root (Potato):

Malignant: of simple leaves (Nightshade, Mandrake),
of compound leaves (Herb Christopher, _Paris_).

Or Manner of Growth:

being climbers (_Bryonia_, _Tamus_, _Smilax_):

not climbers (_Physalis Alkekengi_, _Cucubalus_, _Sambucus
Ebulus_).

OF SHRUBS.

I. Bacciferous Spinous Shrubs of Deciduous Leaves

(the genera _Rubus_ and _Rosa_, Gooseberry, Sloe, Barberry,
_Rhamnus_, _Lycium_).

II. Bacciferous Shrubs of Deciduous Leaves, not Spinous

(Vine, Currant, Bilberry, _Viburnum_, White Beam, _Cornus_,
_Prunus Padus_, _P. Mahaleb_, _Diospyros_, Honeysuckle, Pepper,
_Daphne_, _Euonymus_, Privet, _Salicornia_).

III. Bacciferous Sempervirent Shrubs

(_Rhamnus Alaternus_, _Phillyraea_, _Arbutus_, _Daphne Laureola_,
_Ruscus_, _Chamaerops humilis_, Laurustinus, Juniper, Myrtle,
Ivy, Mistletoe).

IV. Siliquous Shrubs

(Lilac, _Cytisus_, _Colutea_, _Ulex_, _Genista_, _Mimosa_).

V. Graniferous Deciduous Shrubs

(_Vitex_, _Spiraea_, _Tamarix_, _Jasminum_, _Althaea_, _Elaeagnus_,
_Clematis_, _Ampelopis_).

VI. Graniferous Evergreen Shrubs

(_Cistus_, Oleander, Rosemary, _Phlomis fruticosa_, _Erica_, &c.).

OF TREES.

I. Pomiferous Trees (Apple, Pear, &c., _Sorbus_, Fig, Pomegranate,
Orange, Lemon, Banana).

II. Pruniferous Trees (Peach, Plum, Cherry, &c., Olive, Date, Jujube).

III. Bacciferous Trees (Mulberry, Elder, Sumach, _Celtis_, Bay, Yew,
Holly, Box, &c.).

IV. Nuciferous Trees (Walnut, Almond, Hazel, _Castanea_, Beech,
Coco-Palm, Coffee, Cocoa, Cotton).

V. Glandiferous and Coniferous Trees (Oak, Alder, Larch, Cedar,
Pine, Spruce, Cypress).

VI. Trees bearing their Seeds in Single Teguments or Coverings
(Carob, Tamarind, Elm, Hornbeam, Maple, Poplar, Willow,
Lime, Plane).

VII. Trees considered according to their Woods or Barks (Lignum
Vitae, Snakewood, Sandal-wood, Log-wood, Cinnamon, Cinchona,
&c.).

VIII. Trees considered according to their Gumms or Rosins (Myrrh,
Gum Arabic, Copal, Benzoin, _Liquidambar_, Camphor).

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.

Genus i. 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. " imperfecto, sexu carentes: _e.g._ _Chenopodium_,
_Alchemilla_, _Artemisia_.
" vi. " imperfecto, Monospermae, semine triquetro:
Polygonaceae.
" vii. " composito, Lactescentes: Compositae, Cichorieae.
" viii. " discoide, Papposae: Compositae, most
Asteroideae and Senecionideae.
" ix. " discoide nudo, Papposae: Compositae,
_Eupatorium_, _Senecio_, _Gnaphalium_.
" x. " composito discoide, Corymbiferae: Compositae,
some Anthemideae.
" xi. " discoide nudo, Corymbiferae: Compositae, the
rest of the Anthemideae.
" xii. " ex flosculis fistularibus, Capitatae:
Compositae, Cynareae.
" xiii. " composito, Anomalae: _Dipsacus_, _Scabiosa_,
_Echinops_, _Armeria_.
" xiv. " 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. { Flore monopetalo uniformi: _e.g._ _Hyoscyamus_,
_Gentiana_, _Convolvulus_, _Campanula_.
" xxvii. {
" xviii. { 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.

Genus i. 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.

Genus i. 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.=

Genus i. 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._

Genus xxiii. 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).

Genus i. 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=:

Genus i. 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."

_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 from _Anatomy of Vegetables Begun_, 1672]

_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.

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_)]]