Re: VMS -- Botany (f86v) Plant Reproduction

[Dana Scott <dfscott@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following quote from "Leeuwenhoek's Perception Of The Spermatozoa" appears
to pertain to 'scientific' concepts evidenced in the VMS:

"This view had melded the views of the Aristotelians (who assumed that
menstrual blood in the uterus formed the fetus under the influence of the
semen), and the Hippocratics (who posited a female semen as well, that mixed
with the male semen in the
uterus)."

The scribe of the VMS was probably aware that some plants appeared to exhibit
two varieties (male and female) in the same species. In addition, while the
mechanism of genetic inheritance was not yet know, it would have been
understood from observations throughout nature that separate characteristics
from both the male and female were inherited by the child.

While microscopes most likely predated the VMS, perhaps magnifying glasses were
available. Pollen was clearly visible to the human eye.

LEEUWENHOEK'S PERCEPTION OF THE SPERMATOZOA:
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/fert1a.html

Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723):
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/leeuwenhoek.html

Jan Swammerdam Single Lens Microscope:
http://146.201.224.61/primer/museum/swammerdam1670s.html

Reproduction:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/%7Ejlynch/Frank/Contexts/repro.html

Andrea Cesalpino:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/%7Ejlynch/Frank/People/cesalpin.html

History of Horticulture:
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hort/history.html

Poisons in the Middle Ages:
http://www.florilegium.org/files/UNCAT/poisons-art.text

Doctrine of Signatures and Astrology:
http://www.ibiblio.org/london/herbal-references/LYSATOR-ftpsite/medicinal/uses/signature_doctrine

Regards,
Dana Scott

Nick Pelling wrote:

> At 11:29 04/02/02 +0000, Gabriel Landini wrote:
> >On 4 Feb 2002 at 10:34, Nick Pelling wrote:
> > > It's certainly debatable, but the iconography of the page suggests to
> > > me that spermatozoa are represented as dots: in which case both the
> > > male (bottom left) and female (top left) have their own, which would
> > > point to the answer being Galenic.
> >
> >This should imply that the dating of the ms is completely wrong...
> >If we are to believe the signature at the front as proof of the ms passing
> >by Jacobus hands , JdeT received his title in 1608.
> >The first compound microscope is attributed to Zacharias Jansen around
> >1595. Spermatozoa had not been observed until
> >van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), so really, I think that there is no reason to
> >believe that the page represents cellular
> >elements.
>
> OK, guilty as charged. :-)   For "spermatozoa are...", please read "the
> flow of 'active principle' (within sperm, as first described by Aristotle,
> later to be identified by microscopy as spermatozoa) is...".