Botanical investigations

Theophrastus

Of all the works of Aristotle that have survived, none deals with what was later differentiated as botany, although it
is believed that he wrote at least two treatises on plants. Fortunately, however, the work of Theophrastus, one of
Aristotle’s students, has been preserved to represent plant science of the Greek period. Like Aristotle, Theophrastus
was a keen observer, although his works do not express the depth of original thought exemplified by his teacher. In
his great work, De historia et causis plantarum (The Calendar of Flora, 1761), in which the morphology, natural
history, and therapeutic use of plants are described, Theophrastus distinguished between the external parts, which
he called organs, and the internal parts, which he called tissues. This was an important achievement because Greek
scientists of that period had no established scientific terminology for specific structures. For that reason, both
Aristotle and Theophrastus were obliged to write very long descriptions of structures that can be described rapidly
and simply today. Because of that difficulty, Theophrastus sought to develop a scientific nomenclature by giving
special meaning to words that were then in more or less current use; for example, karpos for fruit
and perikarpion for seed vessel.

READ MORE ON THIS TOPIC

history of science: The founding of modern biology

The study of living matter lagged far behind physics and chemistry, largely because organisms are so much more

complex than inanimate bodies...

Although he did not propose an overall classification system for plants, more than 500 of which are mentioned in
his writings, Theophrastus did unite many species into what are now considered genera. In addition to writing the
earliest detailed description of how to pollinate the date palm by hand and the first unambiguous account of sexual
reproduction in flowering plants, he also recorded observations on seed germination and development.
Post-Grecian biological studies

Library of Alexandria

With Aristotle and Theophrastus, the great Greek period of scientific investigation came to an end. The most
famous of the new centres of learning were the library and museum in Alexandria. From 300 BCE until around the
time of Christ, all significant biological advances were made by physicians at Alexandria. One of the most
outstanding of those individuals was Herophilus, who dissected human bodies and compared their structures with
those of other large mammals. He recognized the brain, which he described in detail, as the centre of the nervous
system and the seat of intelligence. On the basis of his knowledge, he wrote a general anatomical treatise, a special
one on the eyes, and a handbook for midwives.

Erasistratus, a younger contemporary and reputed rival of Herophilus who also worked at the museum in
Alexandria, studied the valves of the heart and the circulation of blood. Although he was wrong in supposing that
blood flows from the veins into the arteries, he was correct in assuming that small interconnecting vessels exist. He
thus suspected (but did not see) the presence of capillaries; he thought, however, that the blood changed into air,
or pneuma, when it reached the arteries, to be pumped throughout the body.

Perhaps the last of the ancient biological scientists of note was Galen of Pergamum, a Greek physician who
practiced in Rome during the middle of the 2nd century CE. His early years were spent as a surgeon at the
gladiatorial arena, which gave him the opportunity to observe details of human anatomy. At that time in Rome,
however, it was considered improper to dissect human bodies, and, as a result, a detailed study of human anatomy
was not possible. Thus, though Galen’s research on animals was thorough, his knowledge of human anatomy was
faulty. Because his work was extensive and clearly written, Galen’s writings, nevertheless, dominated medicine for
centuries.
The Arab world and the European Middle Ages

After Galen there were no significant biological investigations for many centuries. It is sometimes claimed that the
rise of Christianity was the cause of the decline in science. However, while it is true that Christianity did not favour
the questioning attitude of the Greeks, science had already receded significantly by the end of the 2nd century CE, a
time when Christianity was still an obscure sect.