CHAPTER IIl (Part 10)

common with that of d’Aléchamps, which we have already outlined. Within the larger groups, he shows a stronger perception of natural grouping than appears in his arrangement of the larger classes themselves. He often grouped together genera which we now regard as members of the same natural order, and species which we now look upon as belonging to a single genus. For instance he brought together genera belonging respectively to the Geraniaceze, Hypericacez, Plantaginacee, Crucifere, Compositz, etc. In some cases, however, he was only partially successful, as in the Umbelliferaze, among which he described Mzgel/la (Love-in-a-Mist) and a couple of Saxi- frages. This example shows how little stress was laid on the flowers and fruit at this time, from the point of view of classification. The general habit, and the shape of the leaves were the features that received most attention. Resemblances and differences between the forms of the leaves alone must naturally appear to the botanist of the present day to be a very inadequate basis for a general system of classification. Nevertheless Mathias de l’Obel worked out a scheme on these lines which had great merit, and was a considerable advance on previous efforts. He put forward his system in his ‘Stirpium adversaria’ (1570 —v71) and used it also in his later work. It was thus published much earlier than the very primitive schemes of d’Aléchamps and Dodoens to which we have just referred. The best point of his system is that, by reason of their characteristic differences of leaf structure, he distinguishes the classes now known to us as Monocotyledons and Dicoty- ledons. He introduces a useful feature in the shape of 1 “Transit etiam in arborem in quibusdam regionibus Ricinus, alibi annua stirps.” A. Io 146 Plant Classification [cH. a synoptic table of species which precedes each more or less natural group of plants. The superiority of his classifi- cation to the other arrangements in the field at the time was immediately realised. We have evidence of this in the fact that, after his ‘ Kruydtboeck’ was published, Plantin brought out an album of the wood-engravings used in the book, which, although they had also appeared as illustra- tions to the works of Dodoens and de | Ecluse, were now arranged as in the scheme put forward by de I’Obel, ‘according to their genus and mutual relationship*.” There seems little doubt that de l’Obel made a more conscious effort than any of his predecessors to arrive at a natural classification, and that he realised that such a classification would reveal a unity in all living beings. In the preface to his ‘Stirpium adversaria nova’ of 1570 he writes—‘‘ For thus in an order, than which nothing more beautiful exists in the heavens or in the mind of a wise man, things which are far and widely different become, as it were, one thing.” De |’Obel’s scheme is not expressed in the clear manner to which we have become accustomed in more modern systems, because, in common with other botanists of his time, he did not, as a rule, give names to the groups which we now call orders, or draw any sharp line of distinction between them. De l’Obel’s arrangement, in spite of its good features, had serious drawbacks. The anomalous Monocotyledons, such as Arum, Tamus, Aloe and Ruscus, are scattered among the Dicotyledons, while Dyvosera (the Sundew) appears among the Ferns, and so on. Similarities of leaf form, which are now regarded merely as instances of “homo- plastic convergence,” are responsible for many curious groupings. For instance in the ‘Kruydtboeck’ we find the Twayblade (Zzstera), the May Lily (4Zazanthemum) and the Plantain (//antago) described in succession, while, in another part of the book, various Clovers (77z/olum), Wood Sorrel (Oxalts) and Anemone hepatica are grouped together. It is also not surprising that the Marsh Mari- gold (Caltha), the Waterlilies (MVymphea and Nuphar), 1 “uti 4 D. Mathia Lobelio...singulz videlicet congeneres ac sibi mutuo affines, digestze sunt.” Dedication to ‘Plantarum seu stirpium icones,’ 1581. vi] De lObel’s System 147 Text-fig. 69. “Tussilago”= 7ussilago farfara L., Coltsfoot [Fuchs, De historia stirpium, 1542]. Reduced. IO—2 148 Plant Classification [cH. Limnanthemum and Frogbit ({ydrocharts) should follow one another, or that de l’Obel should have brought together the Broomrape (Ovobanche), the Toothwort (Lathrea), the Bird’s-nest Orchid (/Veottza) and a number of Fungi. In these latter instances the author has really arrived at genuine biological (though not morphological) groups. He has recognised, on the one hand, the marked uniformity of the type of leaf characteristic of “swimming” water-plants, and, on the other hand, he has observed the leaflessness and absence of green colour, which are negative features common to so many saprophytes and parasites. The perception of natural affinities among plants which, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was gradually, in a dim, instinctive fashion, arising in men’s minds, is perhaps best expressed in the work of Gaspard Bauhin, especially in his ‘Pinax theatri botanici’ (1623). This work is divided into twelve books, each book being further sub-divided into sections, comprehending a variable number of genera. Neither the books nor the sections have, as a rule, any general heading, but there are certain exceptions. For instance, Book 11 is called ‘de Bulbosis,’ and a section of Book rv, including eighteen genera, is headed ‘Um- bellifere.’ Some of the sections represent truly natural groups. Book 11, Section v1, for example, consists of ten genera of Comiposite, while Book 1, Section 1 includes six Crucifers. Other sections contain plants of more than one family, but yet show a distinct feeling for relationship. For instance, Book v, Section 1 includes Solanum, Mandra- gora, Lyoscyamus, Nicotiana, Papaver, Fypecoum and Argemone—that is to say four genera from the Solanacez followed by three from the Papaveracee. The common character which brings them together here is, no doubt, their narcotic property, but, although no definite line was drawn between the plants belonging to these two widely sundered families, the order in which they are described shows that their distinctness was recognised. Some of Bauhin’s other groups, however, which, like that just dis- cussed, are distinguished by their properties, or, in other words, by their chemical features, have no pretension to naturalness from a morphological standpoint. This is the case with the group described in Book x1, Section 11 Gaspard Bauhin’s System 149 SS rf ’ Ly, 3 oe, pbs = = ee y ¥ ¥ > es =e ae. , OVE biALiys , Koss ee le) aes Bsepe weary. PLANTAGO MAIOR. ‘““Plantago major” = Plantain [Fuchs, De historia stirpium, -Text-fig. 70. 1542). Reduced. 150 Plant Classification [cH. under the name of ‘‘Aromata,” which consists of a hetero- geneous assemblage of genera belonging to different orders, which are only connected by the fact that they all yield spices useful to man. There is no doubt that, on the whole, Bauhin was & a 4a >, al ba, SE ar aye 2 (ee Text-fig. 71. “Althea Thuringica”=Lavatera thuringiaca L. [Camerarius, Hortus medicus, 1588]. markedly successful in recognising affinities within small cycles, but he broke down on the broader question of the relationships between the groups of genera so constituted. This is, however, hardly surprising when we remember vi] Bauhin and Zaluziansky ISI how much difference of opinion exists among systematic botanists, even to-day, upon the subject of the relations of the orders to one another. Like de lObel, Bauhin seems to have believed in the general principle of a progression from the simpler to the more highly developed forms. His application of this principle led him to begin with the Grasses and to conclude with the Trees. The question as to which groups among the Flowering Plants | Angiosperms] are to be considered as relatively primitive, is still, at the present day, an open one, but it would be generally conceded that Bauhin’s arrangement cannot be accepted. There is little doubt, from the standpoint of modern botany, that the Grasses are a highly specialised group, while the ‘tree habit” has been adopted independently by many plants belonging to entirely different cycles of affinity, and thus, except in rare cases, it cannot be used as a criterion of relationship. On the subject of the relations of the Cryptogams (flowerless plants) to the Phanerogams (flowering plants), Bauhin had evidently no clear ideas, but such could hardly be hoped for in the state of knowledge of that time. We find, for instance, the Ferns, Mosses, Corals(!), Fungi, Algz, the Sundew, etc., sandwiched between some Leguminose, and a section consisting chiefly of Thistles. The classification put forward by the Bohemian botanist, Zaluziansky, in 1592, although in its general features no better than that of Dodoens, or of d’Aléchamps, and certainly less satisfactory than that of de l’Obel or the later scheme of Bauhin, is an improvement on all of these in one particular, namely, that he begins with the Fungi and deals next with Mosses. After the Mosses he describes the Grasses, and his classification concludes with the Trees. He was thus evidently attempting to pass from the simpler to the more complex, and his arrangement indicates that, unlike certain other botanists of his time, he looked upon the Lower Cryptogams as comparatively simple and primi- tive plants. He was not so clear-sighted, however, on the subject of the Ferns, for he placed them with the Umbelli- fer and some Composite, no doubt because he was influenced by the form of the leaf. It is curious that Cesalpino, who, as we have pointed 152 Plant Classification [CH. out, had arrived at the very important principle that the seed and fruit characters were of major value in classifica- tion, yet put forward a system which was distinctly inferior to that of Gaspard Bauhin, although the latter appears to have been guided by no such general principles. Text-fig. 72. “ Pulsatilla” = Anemone pulsatilla L., Pasque-flower [Camerarius, De plantis Epi- tome...Matthioli, 1586]. Probably the reason for this is to be sought in the fact that no system of classification can represent natural affinities, unless it takes into account the nature of the plant as VI] Cesalpino’s System 153 a whole. It is true that, compared with the characters of the reproductive organs, the leaf-form and habit, owing to their plasticity, have to be used with great discretion as systematic criteria, but, nevertheless, no system of classifi- cation can afford to ignore them entirely. Cesalpino based his scheme too exclusively upon seed characters, to the neglect even of the structure of the flower, and, curiously enough, although he laid so much stress upon the nature of the seed, he did not grasp the fundamental distinction between the embryos of the Monocotyledons and the Dicotyledons, due to the possession of one, and two seed- leaves respectively. The chief drawback of his scheme, however, was his failure to realise that living organisms are too complex to fall into a classification based on any one feature, important as that feature may prove to be when used in conjunction with other characters. Those herbalists, on the other hand, who attacked the problem of the classification of plants without any pre- conceived, academic theory, depended, one might almost say, on the glimmerings of common sense for the recognition of affinities. This was no doubt adim and fitful illumination, but it was at least less partial than the narrow, lime-light beam of a rigid theory. CELA PE ERso Vabh THE) EVOLUTION.OF (GH Es A Rast Or BOTANICAL ILLUSTRATION ycjN the art of botanical illustration, ¥% evolution was by no means a simple «s and straightforward process. We do & not find, in Europe, a steady advance Se esr) from early illustrations of poor quality ER. @ to later ones of a finer character. On ay a> @> the contrary, among the earliest extant <A 2. drawings, of a definitely botanical inten- tion, we meet with wonderfully good figures, free from such features as would be now generally regarded as archaic. The famous Vienna manuscript of Dioscorides (see pp. 8 and 85) is a remarkable example of the excellence of some of the very early work. It dates back to the end of the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century of the Christian era. It is illustrated with brush drawings on a large scale, which in many cases are notably naturalistic, and often quite modern in appearance (Plates I, II, XV). The general habit of the plant is admirably expressed, and occasionally, as in the case of the Bean (Plate XV), the characters of the flowers and seed-vessels are well indicated. In this drawing, also, the leaves are effectively foreshortened. There are a number of other manuscript herbals in existence, illustrated with interesting figures. The Library of the University of Leyden possesses a particularly fine example’, which is ascribed to the seventh century a.D. 1 Codex Vossianus Latinus in Quarto No. 9. ITE DY ‘Phasiolos’= Bean [Dioscorides, Codex Aniciz Juliane, circa A.D. 500]. Reduced. CH. VII] The ‘Herbarium’ of A ‘puletus 155 This work contains coloured drawings of exceptional beauty, which are smaller than those in the Vienna manuscript, but quite equally realistic. It is however with the history of botanical figures since the invention of the printing press that we are here more especially concerned. From this epoch onwards, the history of botanical illustration is intimately bound up with the history of wood-engraving, until, at the extreme end of the sixteenth century, engraving on metal first came into use to illustrate herbals. During the seventeenth century, metal-engravings and wood-cuts existed side by side, but wood-engraving gradually declined, and was in great measure superseded by engraving on metal. The finest period of plant illustration was during the sixteenth century, when wood-engraving was at its zenith. Botanical wood-engravings may be regarded as belonging to two schools, but it should be understood that the distinc- tion between them is somewhat arbitrary and must not be pressed very far. One of these may perhaps be regarded as representing the last, decadent expression of that school of late classical art which, a thousand years earlier, had given rise to the drawings in the Vienna manuscript. Probably no original wood-cuts of this school were pro- duced after the close of the fifteenth century. In the second phase, on the other hand, which culminated, artis- tically, if not scientifically, in the sixteenth century, we find a renaissance of the art, due to a more direct study of nature. The first school, of which we may take the cuts in the Roman edition of the ‘ Herbarium’ of Apuleius Platonicus (2 1484) as typical examples, has, as Dr Payne has pointed out, certain very well-marked characteristics. The figures of the plants (see Plates IV, V, XVI, and Text-figs. 1 and 2), which occupy square or oblong spaces, are very formal and are often represented with complete bilateral symmetry. They show no sign of having been drawn directly from nature, but look as if they were founded on previous work. They have a decorative rather than a naturalistic appearance ; it seems, indeed, as if the principle of decorative symmetry controlled the artist almost against his will. These drawings are somewhat of the nature of 156 Botanical Illustration [cH. diagrams by a draughtsman “who generalized his know- ledge of the object.” In Dr Payne’s own words, ‘Such figures, passing through the hands of a hundred copyists, became more and more conventional, till they reached their last and most degraded form in the rude cuts of the Roman Flerbarium, which represent not the infancy, but the old age of art. Uncouth as they are, we may regard them with some respect, both as being the images of flowers that bloomed many centuries ago, and also as the last ripple of the receding tide of Classical Art.” The illustrations of the ‘ Herbarium’ of Apuleius were copied from pre-existing manuscripts, and the age of the originals is no doubt much greater than that of the printed work. Those here reproduced are taken from a copy in the British Museum, in which the pictures were coloured, probably at the time when the book was published. Colouring of the figures was characteristic of many of the earliest works in which wood-engraving was employed. In cases where uncoloured copies of such books exist, there are often blank spaces in the wood-cuts, which were left in order that certain details might afterwards be added in colour. The origin of wood-engraving is closely connected with the early history of playing-card manufacture. Playing- cards were at first coloured by means of stencil plates, and the same method, very naturally, came to be employed in connection with the wood-blocks used for book illustration. The engravings in the ‘Herbarium’ of Apuleius are executed in black, in very crude outline. At least two colours, now much faded, were also employed by means of stencilling. The work was coarsely done, and the colours only “register” very roughly. Brown appears to have been used for the animals, roots and flowers, and green for the leaves. The drawings show some rather curious mannerisms. For instance, in the first cut labelled “ Vettonia,” each of the lanceolate leaves is outlined con- tinuously on the one side, but with a broken line on the other. It has been suggested that the illustrations in the ‘Herbarium’ are possibly not wood-engravings, but rude cuts in metal, excavated after the manner of a wood-block. We have already referred to the imaginative portrait of the Mandrake (Plate V). Figures of the animals whose Pigte Lov I yDE ‘Dracontea’ [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici, ? 1484]. The tint represents colouring, which was probably contemporary. VIT] ‘The Book of Nature’ 157 bites or stings were supposed to be cured by the use of a particular herb, were often introduced into the drawing, as in the case of the Plantain (Text-fig. 1) which is accom- panied by a serpent and a scorpion. In this figure the cross-hatching of white lines on black—the simplest possible device from the point of view of the wood-engraver— is employed with