380 History of the Sexual Theory. [BOOK in.
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 animad- versum, 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 obser- vations of his own, but attempted in 1592 to reduce the
1 See De Candolle, 'Physiologic vegetale,' p. 47.
2 His ' Methodus Herbaria' is said to have been published in 1592. The remarks in the text are made in reliance on a long quotation from it in Keeper's translation of De Candolle's ' Physiologic,' ii. p. 49, who had before him an edition of 1604.