Theophrasti De Historia Plantarum (1483 Incunabulum)

For only the humor of those having blood is returned by a certain name. For which reason, we decide on its deprivation for that; for we admit that some things have blood, while others lack it. Therefore, that is a part, and the heat connected to it. Yet there are also other kinds diverse from the internal ones, which themselves indeed lack a name by themselves, but they borrow an appellation for themselves by similarity from the parts of animals. They have, in a certain way, a nerve, which is a continuous, fissile, and long thing, but unsociable, and infertile to a bud, and having veins. The veins themselves are otherwise similar to the nerve, but they are larger and thicker, and possess branches and humor. Likewise, wood and flesh. Some, indeed, have wood; others have flesh. Wood is fissile; flesh can be divided in all dimensions. Just as everything from the earth consists of earth. Whence it happens that it is itself intermediate between the nerve and the veins. Its nature is clear, as in the others, so also in the skin of fruits. Bark and matrix are called proper names, but we must render them with a definition. Bark is the outermost part, and separable from the subject body. The matrix is that which is contained in the middle of the wood, third from the bark, like the pith in bones. Some call this the heart, others the marrow original: "medulla". The parts are considered to be almost as numerous as the posterior ones consist of the prior ones. Wood consists of nerve and humor. Some even of flesh. For when they harden, they pass into wood, such as the palm, the fennel, and whatever becomes woody, such as the radish and roots. The matrix consists of flesh and humor. A certain bark consists of those three, such as that of the oak, the poplar, and the pear. From which the bark, some consist of humor and nerve, such as the vine. Leaves, however, consist of humor and flesh. Again, from these, those very greatest and first ones which we enumerated are composed. Yet not all from the same, nor in a similar way, but differently. Therefore, having now exposed almost all the parts, we must now attempt to assign their differences and the nature of trees and all plants. But since doctrine is usually handed down more clearly when we divide by species, this will be done rightly in this way, wherever it is possible. Thus, there are the first and greatest, and by which almost all or certainly the most are contained: tree, shrub, undershrub, herb. A tree is that which rises from the root with a simple, branched, knotted, and shoot-bearing trunk, or one easily dissolvable, such as the olive, the fig, the vine. A shrub rises from the root with a multiple trunk and is branched, such as the briar or the Christ's thorn original: "paliurus". An herb is that which comes forth from the root with leaves, without a trunk, and bears seed on a stem, such as grains and vegetables. But definitions ought to be accepted and tested in such a way that they are sub-signed by us, as if in general, by certain known traits and outlines, and indeed some things perhaps appear to differ by their own nature. Some things are even made different on account of cultivation, and depart from their own nature, such as the mallow, which rises high and passes into a tree. For it happens thus, and not in a long time, but in six or seven months, such that it can grow to the size of a spear in length and thickness. Therefore, it comes to be convenient for use as a staff. In a longer time having passed, it takes on increments in proportion. In a similar way, also the beet, for that also takes on a larger magnitude. But the willow or Christ's thorn note: Latin "amerina palurius" implies specific types much more so, so that these are undoubtedly made into trees, although they are shrubs. But the myrtle, unless it is pruned frequently, passes into a shrub. Indeed, the hazelnut, which would bear better and more copious fruit if one left more shoots...