GLIMPSES OF OLD HERBALS. 



261 



The Kreuter Buck of Bock is in German, and 

 dated 1546. The same work translated into Latin 

 becomes De Stirpiiim, and Bock takes the Latin 

 form of Tragus, the date 1552. In the frontispiece 

 Tragus is represented with a flower in his hand, 

 evidently lecturing from nature, and his illustrations 

 bear out the inference. My edition of Bock has 

 colored figures, but whether cotemporaneous with 

 publication I cannot say. The wood-cuts are char- 

 acteristic, and I find no difficulty in recognizing 

 those plants that I ought to know. The synonymy 

 is extensive, if not always correct, and there is 

 oftentimes a confusion through different names being 

 used for the figures than those used on the margins 

 or in the text. 



Of a different character are the two following 

 herbals, which I have hence grouped together. 

 The Botanicon of Dorstenius, 1540, deals more par- 

 ticularly with the simples of medicine than with 

 botany. The figures are often on a reduced scale, 

 and are frequently of a different plant than that 

 treated of in the text. They are often recognizable 

 even when doing double duty. Thus a young cab- 

 bage plant does duty under Beta and Olus. The 

 illustration of the lettuce is excellent from a gar- 

 dener's standpoint. The Kreiitetbuch of Eucharius 

 Roszlin, 1550, may be classed with the preceding. 



Narcissus. Fifteenth Century. 



from which many, if not most of the figures are 

 copied. The picture of the cabbage shows plainly 



that hard heading cabbages were known in his 

 time. 



Mandragora or Mandrake. 



We have now arrived at 1550, the date which I 

 had set for the conclusion of this article. From 

 Brunfelsius to this date we have noted the begin- 

 nings of a botany based on identification, and we 

 have found nothing figured that we could burlesque. 

 The Scythian lamb appeared later, and not until 

 1605 do we find the portrait of the tree whose 

 leaves falling on land became flying birds, and in 

 the water swimming fishes. The beginnings of 

 botany were earnest and truthful, and it is with a 

 high respect that we rise from the examination of 

 these books so scantily treated, and we cannot but 

 deplore the lack of recognition by modern botanical 

 science, as the logic of the modern reform in no- 

 menclature must ultimately lead us to recognize the 

 pre-Linnasan systems. Linnjeus' system replaced 

 figures to a large extent, and secured identification 

 through description. The natural system now in 

 vogue is, however, dependent on herbarium speci- 

 mens or figures to a large extent. If identification 

 is one of the leading aims of systematic botany, then 

 there is no valid logical reason why specific nomen- 

 clature should begin with Linnaeus, rather than to 

 date from the earliest certain separation and illus- 

 tration of a species. These old books will yet have 

 their innings. 



Massachiiseits. E. Lewis Sturtevant. 



