ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 



parts; wherefore we should regard them not 

 for what they are but for what they are about 

 to be." " 



Theophrastus realizes the intricate com- 

 plexity of his subject and that a true classifi- 

 cation of plants is beyond him: " In fact your 

 plant is a thing various and manifold, and so 

 it is difficult to describe in general terms; in 

 proof whereof we have the fact that we can- 

 not here seize on any universal character which 

 is common to all, as a mouth and a stomach are 

 common to all animals. . . . For not all plants 

 have root, stem, branch, twig, leaf, flower or 

 fruit, or again bark, core, fibres, or veins; for 

 instance, fungi and truffles; and yet these and 

 such like characters belong to a plant's essen- 

 tial nature. However . . . these characters be- 

 long especially to trees, and our classification 

 of characters belongs more particularly to 

 these; and it is right to make these the stand- 

 ard, in treating of the others." 58 



With other ancient writers Theophrastus was 

 much intrigued by conceptions of differ- 

 ences of sex between plants. He did not 

 understand the sexual parts of flowers. With 

 reference to palms, he comes nearest to an idea 

 of the process of fertilization, knowing of long- 



[81] 



