VI] Dodoens and de VObel 145 



In the first book of Dodoens' ' Pemptades ' (1583) the 

 principles of botany are discussed. The old Aristotelian 

 classification into Trees, Shrubs, Undershrubs and Herbs 

 is accepted, but with some reservations. The. author 

 points out that an individual plant may, owing to cultivation, 

 or from some other cause, pass from one class into another. 

 He instances Ricinus, which is an herbaceous annual with 

 us, but a tree in other countries\ 



The general scheme of classification, which Dodoens 

 propounded, has much in common with that of d' Al^champs, 

 which we have already outlined. Within the larger groups, 

 he shows a stronger perception of natural grouping than 

 appears in his arrangement of the larger classes themselves. 

 He often grouped together genera which we now regard 

 as members of the same natural order, and species which 

 we now look upon as belonging to a single genus. For 

 instance he brought together genera belonging respectively 

 to the Geraniaceae, Hypericacea;, Plantaginacese, Cruciferse, 

 Compositse, etc. In some cases, however, he was only 

 partially successful, as in the Umbelliferae, among which he 

 described Nigella (Love-in-a-Mist) and a couple of Saxi- 

 frages. This example shows how little stress was laid on 

 the flowers and fruit at this time, from the point of view of 

 classification. The general habit, and the shape of the 

 leaves were the features that received most attention. 



Resemblances and differences between the forms of the 

 leaves alone must naturally appear to the botanist of the 

 present day to be a very inadequate basis for a general 

 system of classification. Nevertheless Mathias de I'Obel 

 worked out a scheme on these lines which had great merit, 

 and was a considerable advance on previous efforts. He 

 put forward his system in his ' Stirpium adversaria' (1570 

 — 71) and used it also in his later work. It was thus 

 published much earlier than the very primitive schemes of 

 d'Al^champs and Dodoens to which we have just referred. 

 The best point of his system is that, by reason of their 

 characteristic differences of leaf structure, he distinguishes 

 the classes now known to us as Monocotyledons and Dicoty- 

 ledons. He introduces a useful feature in the shape of 



1 "Transit etiam in arborem in quibusdam regionibus Ricinus, alibi annua 

 stirps." 



i 10 



