152 



observations of Theophrastus on germinating seeds, the author 

 of the "Landmarks" has the following: 



"To the beautiful work of a Malpighi one gives somewhat more 

 credit than is fairly due it, until one has read these chapters of 

 the ancient Athenian master. Then it is clearly apprehended 

 that the man of the seventeenth century may have received the 

 suggestions of his own work directly from the Greek philosopher; 

 and is almost ready to add that the beautiful drawings of sprout- 

 ing grain adorning Malpighi's folio might almost have been done 

 from the Theophrastan descriptions of the same. It must needs 

 be conceded that the botanic garden at Athens, founded by 

 Aristotle, and the earliest of which there is any record, was 

 wonderfully prolific of new botanical facts of profoundest im- 

 port." 



Theophrastus appears to have had little sympathy with popular 

 notions of his day as to the possible changing of plants into others 

 of different kinds. In regard to one phase of this belfef he ob- 

 serves: "Some say that barley changes to wheat sometimes and 

 wheat to barley, and that in the same field. Such statements 

 are to be received as fables. Changes of that kind would be with- 

 out a cause. It is diversity of condition that induces change." 



Under the heading "Taxonomy", Dr. Greene discusses in a very 

 interesting and instructive manner the ideas of Theophrastus in 

 regard to genera and various other aspects of the interrelation- 

 ships of plants. The author candidly admits that "one ascertains 

 with difficulty, if at all, what the historian is most in need of 

 knowing, namely where this writer of the first book of botany is 

 recording points of taxonomy that are of prehistoric discovery 

 and universal traditional acceptance, and where he is introducing 

 some amendment or improvement of his own." These words 

 were written especially of some of the primary groupings of 

 plants made by the Greek philosopher, but Dr. Greene, we think, 

 would be the first to acknowledge and does acknowledge, by 

 implication, at least, that the same difficulty obtains in connection 

 with the generic names adopted by Theophrastus — a reflection 

 that might w^U give pause to any one who, in quest of primal 

 historic truth and absolute justice in matters of botanical nomen- 

 clature, would be so bold as to cite Theophrastus as the author of 

 any particular generic name. 



