30 HISTORY OF BOTANY 



out his results in the form of an essay which was brought 

 to the notice of the then secretary of the recently founded 

 (1645) Royal Society, and read before the Society in 1670. 

 The MS. was printed in May 1671. Meanwhile Malpighi, 

 who had been working independently on the same subject 

 in Italy, had also written out his results and, strangely 

 enough, sent his work also to the Royal Society, and, 

 as it happened, an abstract of his MS. was read at a 

 meeting of the Society in December 1671, when Crew's 

 essay, now in print, was " laid on the table." Both 

 works, therefore, bear the same date, although Grew is 

 undoubtedly entitled to claim priority of pubUcation. 

 The second part of Grew's treatise appeared in May 1672, 

 and a third in the spring of 1674, while the second part 

 of Malpighi's work saw the Hght in August of the same 

 year. The squabble between the partisans of these two 

 pioneers was fortunately not reflected in the behaviour 

 of the principals themselves, for each hailed the other's 

 work with cordiahty and appreciation. Indeed it is on 

 record that Grew went so far as to propose discontinuing 

 his researches in order to leave the field open for his rival, 

 but, luckily for science, the Royal Society dissuaded him 

 from such an exhibition of self-sacrificing renunciation. 



I propose to sketch for you first of all Grew's main 

 conclusions and then, much more briefly, Malpighi's 

 views. I select Grew's work for detailed notice not 

 merely on accoimt of his prior claim so far as pubUcation 

 is concerned, but because his work is in English, while 

 that of Malpighi is in Latin ; you may thus consult 

 Grew's volume for yourselves, — I regret the department 

 does not possess a copy of Malpighi's essay. For your 

 purposes it is really immaterial which of the two savants 

 you study in order to gain some idea of the condition of 

 anatomical knowledge in the closing years of the seven- 

 teenth century. There is one general point; however, to 

 which I would draw your attention, and that is that in 

 both treatises anatomical facts are closely interwoven 



