Wagner P
Kobenhavns Universitet, Botanisk Museum & Centralbibliotek Solvgade Kobenhaven.
Theriaca. 2000 Sep(32):25-64.
It is often claimed, that the late attempts in the renaissance to classify plants according to Aristotelian principles were caused by insufficient morphological knowledge and terminology, by problems with identification of the plants described by the ancient authorities and by the overwhelming number of new plants from the hitherto unknown parts of the world. These explanations are in the present paper not contested but supplemented with information achieved by analysis of two dialogues on botanical problems, both published in the 1530s, in which the ambiguities of the then new science are discussed. The main object of the studies in botany made by medical doctors was identification of simplicia in the pharmacies and drug-dealers shops. Control of the simplicia sold was a public duty demanded of university professors and medical doctors, and the teaching in plant science consequently concentrated on parmacognosy. As even the best Aristotelian classification is useless in identification of small plant parts, systematic botany in the modern sense was not needed and it is concluded that this fact also contributed to the late interest in classification.
人们常说,文艺复兴后期试图根据亚里士多德的原则对植物进行分类,是由于形态学知识和术语不足、古代权威所描述植物的鉴定问题,以及来自世界未知地区的大量新植物。本文并不质疑这些解释,而是补充了通过分析两篇关于植物学问题的对话所获得的信息,这两篇对话均发表于16世纪30年代,其中讨论了当时这门新科学的模糊性。医生们进行植物学研究的主要目的是在药房和药商店铺中识别药材。对所售药材的管控是大学教授和医生的一项公共职责,因此植物科学教学集中在生药学上。由于即使是最好的亚里士多德分类法在识别小植物部分时也毫无用处,所以现代意义上的系统植物学并不必要,并且得出结论,这一事实也导致了对分类的兴趣出现得较晚。