ON THE ORIGIN OF HERBARIA. 299 . 
— We know of the existence of several herbaria, which were made about 
the time of Spiegel; among others, that of Caspar Bauhin (who 
died in 1624), now at Basle, and that of his pupil Joachim Burser (a 
great traveller), in thirty folio volumes, now at Upsal. The further 
however that we go back, the scarcer do herbaria become. It was evi- 
dently at this period a very recent and little known invention. We 
read frequently that botanists sent scarce plants to each other, some- 
times as drawings, but sometimes also the plants themselves ; and it is 
very probable the senders retained specimens for themselves, and if so, 
they must have had herbaria. But do we know anything about the 
state of these exchanged plants? Mattioli mentions plants sent to 
him by different parties, in the dedication of the first (1543) and still 
more of the later editions (1554 and 1565) of his Commentary on 
Dioscorides, but in such general terms, that it is impossible to tell 
Whether they were specimens artificially dried, or tied in bundles, like 
the herbs of the modern herbalists, or perhaps young living plants, or 
seeds only, or, it may be, nothing more than drawings or descriptions. 
In a letter to Maranta, he states :—'* Non negaverim plures me dedisse 
plantarum imagines, que e siccis plantis ad me transmissis dilineari 
curaverim ; sed affirmaverim etiam, quod aque gelidee maceratione con- 
tractas e siccitate rugas adeo in iis extenderim, ut hac ratione redivivee 
et parum admodum a viridibus distantes viderentur." This might 
be written by a modern botanist, after having made an analysis of the 
flowers and fruit, without necessarily implying that the specimens were 
bad; but in the case of Mattioli, who did not consider a correct repre- 
Seutation of the organs of fructification as important, I conclude that 
the plants were not properly dried, but, put up in bundles. In another 
letter to Georgius Marius, written in 1558, two years after the death 
of Luca Ghini, he refers to the extraordinary liberality of this great 
botanist in supporting his work, and says :—“ Cum is decrevisset vo- 
lumina quedam, que de plantis conscripserat, una cum imaginibus in 
lucem edere, visis perleetisque commentariis nostris, non solum ad me 
gratulatorias scripsit literas, quod illum preevenerim ejusque subleva- 
Verim labores, sed et quam plurimas misit plantas, quas illi sane — 
acceptas, ubi earum imaginibus nostram ornavimus Dioscoridem.” It 
is difficult to say whether this refers to well-dried plants, or to drawings 
Prepared by Ghini for his own work. Lobel, in the preface to his * Stir- 
Pium Illustrationes' (London, 1655), considers the drawings published 
