the stamens as simply envelopes of the foetus ; and though
he knew, as has been already shown, that in some plants,
the hazel, chestnut, Ricinus, Taxus, Mercurialis, Urtica,
Cannabis, Mais, the flowers are separate from the fruit, and
even mentions that the barren individuals are called male,
and the fruit-bearing female, he understood this only as a
popular expression, without really admitting a sexual relation.
Respecting the words male and female he says at page 15: 'Quod ideo fieri videtur quia feminae materia temperatior
sit, maris autem calidior; quod enim in fructum transire debuisset, ob superfluam caliditatem evanuit in flores, in
eo tamen genere feminas melius provenire et fecundiores
fieri aiunt, si juxta mares serantur, ut in palma est animadversum, quasi halitus quidam ex mari efflans debilem feminae calorem expleat ad fructificandum.'
There is no mention of the pollen here, still less any attempt to extend what had been observed in dioecious plants to the ordinary cases, in which flowers and pistil, as Cesalpino would say, are united in the same individual. His view of the relation between the seed and the shoot, cited above on page 47, shows that he conceived of the formation of seeds as only a nobler form of propagation than that by buds, but not essentially distinct from it. The idea of sexuality in plants was not in fact consonant with Cesalpino's interpretation of Aristotelian teaching.
Prosper Alpino's account (1592) of the pollination of the date-palm contains nothing new, except that he had seen it in Egypt himself[1].
The Bohemian botanist Adam Zaluziansky[2] made no observations of his own, but attempted in 1592 to reduce the
