LANDMARKS OF BOTANICAL HISTORY — GREENE I 73 



nothing anew. He will ignore the contents of wretched mediaeval 

 herbals like the Hortus Sanitatis. He will reproduce the standard 

 descriptions of classic Greek and Roman authors. For an example, 

 take his presentation of the two water lilies, the white-flowered 

 kind and the yellow. He figures them admirably, and, not having 

 a word of his own to add to that knowledge of them which has been 

 the common property of botanists for a thousand years and more, he 

 supplements the two plates by three folio pages of quotations about 

 them, taken from a list of eleven of the most approved botanical 

 authors, ancient, mediaeval, and contemporary. Here is the list: 



Theophrastus Serapion 



Dioscorides Simon Januensis 



Plinius Rases 



Apuleius Joannes Vigonius 



Georgius Valla Hieronymus Herbarius 



Avicenna 



And what is true as to his presentation of the water lilies holds 

 good in the case of almost every other genus that he takes up. Rarely 

 does he append to such a succession of quoted paragraphs a few 

 remarks of his own; and these always indicated as his by the 

 special caption, " Sententia nostra," or " Sententia Othonis;" nor 

 are such original paragraphs really of the nature of descriptions. 

 They usually express some opinion as to the identity of the plant 

 in question; have reference to the correct application of a classic 

 plant name. As to phytography, therefore, the Brunfelsian vol- 

 umes are a treasury of select quotations from a long line of books 

 many of which are now seldom seen. But there are no new descrip- 

 tions in his volumes ; and it may be doubted whether upon the whole 

 he directly advanced the art of plant description by a syllable. 



It is no impeachment of his erudition to question that he had 

 the ability to describe plants well. There is evidence that he had 

 not the faculty of mentally imaging an unknown plant from its de- 

 scription; and the ability to describe, and that of making effective 

 use of a description are twin accomp ishments, if indeed they be 

 not almost one and the same, so that he who has the one has also the 

 other. Certain it is that Brunfels read and studied here and there 

 a classic plant description to little purpose. Bringing together in 

 one chapter the classic descriptions of Aristolochia, the figures by 

 which he illustrates the genus are Corydalis hulbosa and C. Halleri. 

 So gross an error explains tself in this way. The aristolochias 

 were of southern Europe and not found in Germany. Here, however , 



