1.  NOBODY at present doubts but that plants propagate themselves, as animals do, by means of organs, some male and others female; that in a great many plants these two kinds of organs are found united, which plants are then among naturalists distinguished by the name of hermaphrodites; and that in other plants the two sexes are so separated, that the male are on one stem. and the female on another. This system is founded, first, on the analogy there is between the eggs of animals and the seed of plants. both serving equally to the same end, that of propagating a similar race: secondly, on the remarks that have been made, that when the seed of the female plant is not impregnated with the prolific powder of the male, it bears no fruit; insomuch, that as often as the communication between the sexual parts of plants has been intercepted, they have always proved barren. The authors of this system, after exactly anatomizing all the parts of the plant assign to each a name, founded on its use and analogy to the parts of an animal. Thus as to the male organs, the filaments are the spermatic vessels, their antheres, or tops, the testicles ; and as to the female, the style answers to the vagina, the germ to the ovary, and the pericarpium, or fecundated ovary, to the womb.

2.    Linnaeus has the honour of having completed this system, by. reducing all trees and plants to particular classes, distinguished by the number of their stamina, or male organs. Zaluzianski seems to have been the first among the moderns, who clearly distinguished from one another the male, female, and the hermaphroditical plants. About a hundred years after him, Sir Samuel Millington and Dr. Grew communicated to the Royal Society of London. their observations on the impregnating dust of the stamina. Camerarius, towards the end of the last century, observed, that upon plucking off the stamina of some male plants, such as the mulberry-tree the maize, the buds that ought to have produced fruit, came not to maturity. Malpighi and Vaillant have also carefully considered this fecundating dust; the latter of whom seems to have been the first eye-witness of this secret of nature. Many authors afterward applied themselves to improve this system.

3.  We are now to examine whether the ancients knew any thing of this, or whether they only speak of it in a vague and indecisive manner. I agree, that they do not give so exact an account of the anatomy of every part of the flower of a plant as the moderns do; at least, no such work of theirs hath reached our times. They are even sometimes so far mistaken, as to apply some of the parts to purposes they do not serve. But in this they are more excusable than some of our ablest moderns, who have fallen into great errors on this subject, notwithstanding all the instructions, experiments and observations of their cotemporaries. The ablest botanist of his age, Mr. de Tournefort, who could not be ignorant of what had been advanced by Millington, Grew, Malpighi and Camerarius, yet maintains, that the stamina of flowers serve only to secrete or void the less useful parts of the nutritive juices, and are only the excretory vessels belonging to the calix of the flower.

4.  Having made this concession, I may with the more safety affirm, that this one circumstance excepted, of which I have here made mention, the ancients perfectly understood the sexual difference in plants, the fecundation of the fruits of the female by the dust of the flowers of the male, and had a distinct idea of the two sexes, as having place in different individuals.

5.  Theophrastus says, that trees may he distinguished into several classes, on account of their great variety ; but that the most universal difference among them is that of their gender ; whether male or female. And Aristotle observes, that we ought not to fancy that the intermingling of sexes in plants is the same as among animals.

6.  There were it seems, various Opinions among the ancients, as to the manner in which plants should be admitted to have a difference of sex. Some looked upon them as complete in that respect, each individual containing in itself the powers of both sexes. Empedocles endeavoured to solve this, whether in plants the male was distinct from the female; “or, whether the sexes were united in each of the species : and he concluded, that plants were hermaphroditical ; that is a composition of both sexes.” Aristotle doubted, whether he ought to admit, that the two sexes combined in the same plant, or should pronounce that they existed separately.

7.  True it is, this author errs widely in his manner of distinguishing the male from the female plant ; for he thought the difference to consist in this, that the male was larger and stronger, the female weaker, but more fruitful. He said also that the male was more dry, and came sooner to maturity than the female. But it should be observed, it is not upon the testimony of Aristotle that we attempt to show, the ancients knew the sexual system of plants. This is what only appears confused in his writings; for he employs himself rather in giving the sentiments of others, than in advancing reasons of his own.

8.  Empedocles thought that whatever grew, drew its origin from seed, which he compares to eggs in this respect; that it originally contains in it a nutritive aliment, which it immediately communicates to the root. And Aristotle reasoning on this sentiment of Empedocles, says, “ that in plants the two sexes are united,” which makes them capable of propagating themselves ; but instead of a foetus they produce seed, which is the fruit of their generative faculty. And on this account, Empedocles called plants oviparous for time seed, or” egg,” said he, “ is the fruit of the generative faculty, one part of which serves to form the plant, and the other to nourish the germ and root ; in animals of different sexes, we see that nature, when they would procreate, impels them to unite, and like plants to become one ; that from this combination of two, there may spring up another animal.”

9.  As to the manner in which fruits were impregnated, the ancients were not ignorant, that it was by means of the prolific dust contained in the flower of the male ; and they carried the accuracy of their observations so far as to remark that the fruits of trees never come to maturity, till they have been cherished with dust. Upon this, Aristotle says, “that if one shake the dust of a branch of the male palm over the female, her fruits Will quickly ripen; and that when the wind sheds this dust of the male upon the female, her fruits ripen apace.”

10.  Theophrastus, treating of the same subject, says, “they bring the male to the female palm in order to make her produce fruits:

The manner in which they proceed is this : When the male is in flower, they select a branch abounding in that downy dust which resides in the flower, and shake this over the fruit of the female. This operation prevents the fruit from becoming abortive, and brings it soon to perfect maturity.” “ Naturalisis’ says Pliny, “ admit the distinction of sex not only in trees, but in herbs, and in all plants. Yet this is no where more observable,” adds he, “ than in palms he females of which never propagate hut when they are fecundated by the dust of the male.” He calls the female palms, deprived of male assistance, barren widows. He compares the conjunction of these plants to that of animals ; and says, that to generate fruit, the female needs only the aspersion of the dust of the flowers of the male.

Chapter 5 - Of the Chemistry of Tile Ancients

Chapter 5