ON PLANTS. 101 



plants and animals by reason of the absence or presence of 

 sensation, the want of a distinction of sexes in plants, the 

 influence on plants of something which is not sleep, but is 

 Hke sleep, and the primary or entire work of plants, viz., the 

 production of fruits and seeds. The treatise is also written 

 in a truly Aristotelian manner, plain statements being made 

 in a concise form. The evidence obtainable from a con- 

 sideration of the particular style and Greek words and phrases 

 used does not appear to be worth anything, for, in the 

 preface to the treatise, it is stated : — " I have found much 

 diflticulty and also confusion of names because of frequent 

 changes of translation from our language to Latin, then 

 from Latin to Arabic, from Arabic again to Latin, and lastly 

 from Latin to our language." It would be remarkable if 

 any striking resemblance between the original Greek text, if 

 any, and the De Plant is could be found after such a series 

 of changes from one language to another, and, at best, the 

 De Plantis can be only an imperfect version of such an 

 original. 



Further, the De Plantis is remarkable for referring to 

 Plato specifically in its very first chapter, for a reference to 

 Plato by name is very unusual in Aristotle's works and 

 especially so in those relating to the Natural Sciences. In 

 the De Plantis, Egypt, ^Ethiopia, Syria, Palestine, and 

 Persia are referred to in a more familiar way than is usual 

 in Aristotle's genuine works. Again, the passages referred 

 to by Athenoeus and attributed by him to Aristotle, viz., one 

 in Deipn. xiv. c. 66, relating to dates without stones, and 

 another, in Deipn. xiv. c. 68, relating to grafted pears, do not 

 occur in the De Plantis. 



In conclusion, neither the evidence for nor that against 

 the opinion that the De Plantis is a version of one of 

 Aristotle's works is sufficient. The balance of evidence, 

 however, goes to show that the De Plantis is spurious. 



