12 ASTER HISTORY 
Dioscorides furnishing the first and only description of much detail 
prior to the revival of learning. 
We may therefore say that the first real description of Aster 
which has come down to us is that of Dioscorides, of date perhaps 
about 65 A.D. Subsequent appearances of Aster in the writings 
of nearly 1,500 years rest mainly on the basis of Dioscorides’ de- 
scription. 
Monotypic Aster.—During the whole of Greek and Roman an- 
tiquity and during the mediaeval period prior to the revival of 
learning, only one aster (omitting Tripolium) was known to the 
consciousness of the race as expressed in recorded literature. 
One, Aster remained essentially to those whose botanical 
labors were based primarily upon Dioscorides. Aster was still 
one entity to Brunfels * and Bock + and Fuchs { in 1531—though © 
a debatable entity, for which they were all groping to find the 
true prototype in nature. Aster seems still to have impressed 
Ruellius § as one in 1537, and Rivius || and John Lonitzer{ in 
1543- 
It was still one to his son Adam Lonitzer ** in 1557 when he 
issued his Kreuterbuch or herbal. Matthioli, the great commen- 
tator on Dioscorides, also treats Aster as one in his commentary ; Tf 
but before his death in 1577 he was constrained to admit a second 
Aster, his ‘Aster Atticus alter.” tt 
Polytypic Aster—Meanwhile Fuchs and Bock had perceived 
the diversity of asters perhaps as early as 1539. They had 
turned from the exposition of Dioscorides to the exposition of 
*B nfels’ ‘Exegesis --. Simplicium Dioscoridae,’’ page 29 of his ‘‘ De vera 
herbarum cognitione,’’—forming part of Brunfels’ Nov. Herbarii Tomus II.,’’ Stras- 
burg, 1531-2. 
Hieronymus Tragus’ ‘‘ Herbarum dissertationes,’’ 157 ; in Brunfels’ ** De vera 
herbarum.’’ , 
{ Leonhard Fuchs’ ‘‘ Annotationes,’’ 152-3; in Brunfels’ ‘De vera herbarum.”’ 
es e De natura stirpium libri tres,”’ 633 (book 3, c. 126). Basle, 1537: 
*s “ Annotationes’’? to Ruellius’ Lati i i i : 
esis atin translations of Dioscorides, 345 
{| Lonitzer’s ‘‘ Scholia’’ on Marcellus Vergilius’ Latin translation of Dioscorides, 
fol. 67. Marburg, 1543. 
** Lonitzer’s Kreuterbuch, fol. 177. Frankfort, 1557. 
tt Matthioli, Venice, editions 1544-60. 
tt Matthioli, editions 1563 and onward, 
