Chap, i.] by Malpighi and Grew. 231 



those of fennel, teasel, and reed, he found a similar kind of 

 structure with the difference only, that in the latter the por< - 

 (cells) are arranged lengthwise, in cork in transverse rows. 

 He says that he has never seen any passages for communi- 

 cation between the cells, but that they must exist, because the 

 nourishing juice passes from one to another ; for lie has seen 

 how in fresh plants the cells are filled with sap, as are the 

 long pores in the wood ; but these he found empty of sap in 

 the carbonised wood, and filled with air. 



It is plain that it was not much that Hooke saw with his 

 improved microscope ; thin cross-sections of the stem of 

 balsam or gourd, two plants that grew at that time in every 

 garden, would have shown the naked eye as much or even 

 more of vegetable structure. At the same time there is proof 

 here of what was said above on the influence of the micro- 

 scope on the use of the eye ; the pleasure in the performance 

 of the new instrument must first direct attention to things 

 which can be seen without it, but were never seen. 



About the time of the appearance of Hooke's ' Micrographia ' 

 Malpighi and Grew had already made the structure of the 

 plant the subject of detailed and systematic investigations, the 

 results of which they laid before the Royal Society in London 

 almost at the same time in 167 1. The question to which of 

 the two the priority belongs has been repeatedly discussed, 

 though the facts to be considered are undoubted. The first 

 part of Malpighi's large work, the ' Anatomes plantarum idea,' 

 which appeared at a later time, is dated Bologna, November 1, 

 167 1 ; and Grew, who from 1677 was Secretary to the Royal 

 Society, informs us in the preface to his anatomical work of 

 1682, that Malpighi laid his work before the Society on 

 December 7, 167 1, the same day on which Grew presented 

 his treatise, 'The Anatomy of plantes begun,' in print, having 

 already tendered it in manuscript on the eleventh of May in 

 the same year. But it must be observed that these are not the 

 dates of the larger works of the two men. but only of the 



