24:0 THE JOL'UNAL OF BOTANY 



time went on *. In tliis way the evolution of the botanical plate 

 at its best may be traced in the pages of Fuchs ; this explains the 

 remarkable inequality of the work ; a fine drawing being often closely 

 associated in the more or less alphabetical arrangement of the text 

 with an inferior ' mediaeval ' one. It is, for example, difficult to 

 believe that the same men drew 747 and 751, 463 and 467, 883 and 

 886, 286 and 289, if we did not know by personal experience how a 

 few years will improve a system of technique. The drawings of 

 Fuchs may be classed as good, indifferent, and very bad ; the bad 

 ones of some of the commonest and often least effective forms being 

 their tirst rather crude attempts at floral work ; while in their best 

 efforts, after some years of training, the possibilities of their craft- 

 manship become apparent. 



Nothing brings out the value of Brunfels' figures more clearly 

 than their later imitations. Brunfels' plants were mostly small and 

 quite common weeds, in which the greater care was necessary to 

 preserve a resemblance to an easily recognized growth-form ; and 

 these would be just the t^^pes non-botanical designers would find most 

 difficult to tackle. [Who can mistake the liower Brunfels figures as 

 one he didn't know the name of (ii. 80 ' Herha si/lvestris ignoti 

 nomhiis' ?) — and what was the point of putting it in the book if he 

 hadn't drawn it himself ?] 



Thus Brunfels' Viola shoots (i. 135) are delightfully natural ; 

 Fuchs (311) is ver}' feeble in comparison. The Pansy of Brunfels 

 (i. 69) is a good figure of the Corn-field form, with vivid details; 

 Fuchs' (803) is hardly recognizable as a Pansy at all. Brunfels' 

 Hart's Tongue is the earliest line-study of a Fern (a reduced pirated 

 copy Ar. 174). but that of Fuchs is childish beside it. Brunfels' 

 Yellow Flag (ii. 47) is very good for a large plant with a complex 

 flower, and the flower is correctly drawn ; that of Fuchs is distinctly 

 poor. Similarlv, it is only necessary to compare the Plantains (B. i. 5, 

 F. 39, Ar. 149 j ; Malvas (B. ii. 72, F. 508) ; ^cilla hifolia (B. i. 184, 

 F. 838) ; Ficaria (B.i. 215, F. 867) ; Belpluninm (B. i. 83, F. 27); 

 Aiiaram (B. i. 71, F. 9, Ar., spoilt, 169 : and Camhrichfe Flora, i. 

 113) to see that Brunfels is well ahead in scientific perception as well 

 as in draughtmanship. 



Others are equally interesting as showing, even with the help of 

 fresh specimens, the effort of Fuchs' men to copy Brunfels rather 

 than to copy the plant. Cf. the Alchemilla of Brunfels. ii, 53, F. 612 ; 

 Saxifrage (B. i. 185, F. 747); Groundsel (B. i. 120. F. 612); 

 Sanicle (B. i. 80, F. 671). The Ivy (B. ii. 3 and 4) is obviously the 

 inspiration of Fuchs, 421 ; yet how much superior is the shaping of 

 the umbel seen from below, in Brunfels. The IleUehorus (B. i. 30J 

 is a beautiful study, that of Fuchs (274) is very poor, but it shows it 

 is a flagging specimen, and so one of the older figures, before it 

 occurred to them that the plants looked better if kept in water. The 



* The same thing ia very strikingly noticed in Baxter's amateur production : 

 the first plates (1833 and undated) are extremely poor, only after 2-3 years was 

 tlie possibility of the simple method worked out: there is thus some hope for the 

 further improvement of the Candiridge British Flora. 



