LANDMARKS OF BOTANICAL HISTORY GREENE 89 



But what is fully as interesting as Theophrastus' failure to find 

 anything upon a juniper tree which he could demonstrate to be a 

 flower, is his recording the opinion of those who think differently. 

 "There are those who say that the juniper tree is of two kinds, 

 one that flowers and bears no fruit, and another that is flowerless 

 but fructiferous. " 1 The pronouncement is interesting as being 

 diametrically opposed to the Theophrastan doctrine that nothing 

 not in immediate juxtaposition to a fruit rudiment is to be re- 

 garded as a flower. It is a virtual contradiction of the opinion 

 that juli or aments can not be flowers. , These people who held that 

 male and fruitless juniper trees have flowers, and that fertile ones 

 have none, were people who evidently regarded those small eva- 

 nescent yellow, dusty male aments of the juniper as true flowers , 

 even the only flowers that any juniper ever has. If evidence were 

 elsewhere wanting to prove Theophrastus a true philosopher and 

 scientific man, devoted to the truth whatever that may be, rather 

 than to his own theories, it is not wanting here. He publishes 

 this adverse opinion of his neighbors for the very reason that 

 it may possibly turn out to be the right opinion, concluding the 

 whole passage with the recommendation that investigation of 

 the subject be continued. "The matter should be looked into 

 further. "2 



Quite as briefly as he had indicated the distinction between leafy 

 flowers and capillary does Theophrastus give the suggestion that 

 the leafy flower in certain plants is made up of but a__singleleaf . ^ 

 It is practically classifying corollas as choripetalous and sympeta- 

 lous. He writes of what he calls the monophyllous flower as if 

 within the field of his observation it had been somewhat excep- 

 tional ; and he warns the reader that it is not always distinguishable 

 at a glance from the other kind. Viewed as to their periphery 

 they will seem to be made up of separate leaves, but at the center 

 or base they are seen to be monophyllous. In the morning-glory 

 {Convolvulus septum, Linn.), however, the monophyllous character 

 is readily apparent, only a certain angularity of the periphery re- 

 maining in place of the appearance of separate leaves. Even 

 small flowers may be monophyllous. Such are those of the olive 

 tree. Lying on the ground under the trees they are readily seen 

 to be perforate. From his having cited the olive blossom, one is 

 assured that he held a corolla to be monophyllous even if the leaves 

 were united only at base. But one must guard against mentally 



« Hist., Book iii, ch. 6. = Ibid. » Hist., Book i, ch. 21. 



