The Biologist
(Lima)
ISSN Versión Impresa 1816-0719
ISSN Versión en linea 1994-9073 ISSN Versión CD ROM 1994-9081
ORIGINAL ARTICLE /ARTÍCULO ORIGINAL
REDISCOVERING THE FIRST MONOGRAPH ON PLANT ANATOMY -
ANATOME PLANTARUM (1675) BY MARCELLO MALPIGHI
REDESCUBRIENDO LA PRIMERA MONOGRAFÍA SOBRE LA ANATOMÍA DE
LAS PLANTAS- ANATOME PLANTARUM (1675) DE MARCELLO MALPIGHI
1
Marius-Nicusor Grigore
1Faculty of Biology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Iasi, Carol 20 A, Iasi, Romania
mariusgrigorepsyche@yahoo.com
The Biologist (Lima), 14(2), jul-dec: 155-170.
155
ABSTRACT
Keywords: illustrations – Malpighi – microscope – plant anatomy
Malpighi's Anatome Plantarum (1675) arises as a natural step in the progress of plant biology and
especially of plant morphology and anatomy. The book is well written and the language used is
generally accurate, except for the limitations imposed by the level of knowledge at the time of
Malpighi. Malpighi treated the plant as a system and recognized that its organs work in a synergic
manner. Many of the terms used today in modern plant morphology and anatomy were already
used by Malpighi. He introduced many relevant figures to support the information provided,
some of which were derived from microscopic observations. Overall, despite the progress made
since then, his work should be regarded as a modern monograph in plant anatomy.
RESUMEN
Palabras clave: ilustraciones – microscopio – Malpighi – anatomía de plantas
Anatome Plantarum de Malpighi (1675) surge como un paso natural en el progreso de la biología
de las plantas y en especial de la morfología y la anatomía vegetal. El libro está bien escrito y el
lenguaje utilizado es generalmente exacto, salvo las limitaciones impuestas por el nivel del
conocimiento en la época de Malpighi. Malpighi trata la planta como un sistema y reconoce que
sus órganos trabajan de una manera sinérgica. Muchos de los términos utilizados hoy día en la
morfología y anatomía vegetal moderna fueron ya empleados por Malpighi. El autor también
introdujo en su obra muchas figuras relevantes para apoyar la información aportada, algunas
derivadas de observaciones microscópicas. A pesar de los avances registrados desde entonces su
obra debe ser considerada, en general, como una monografía moderna de anatomía de las
plantas.
156
new methodology by the field of religion and
relationship with God. Since then, mechanistic
methods for the exploration of nature penetrate
all areas, including natural sciences, still
dominated until then, by the writings of
Theophrastus and Aristotle.
In this way, within 20-30 years, which
experienced an extra-sensitive reality - the
effervescence of baroque illustrated by
paintings as religious ecstasy - a real, concrete,
tangible world subtly occurs. This is the new
world of illustrations derived from
microscopic observations. In this sense, the
modern human eye could hardly associate St.
Teresa's image, as Italian artist Bernini figured
her in religious ecstasy (sculpture St. Teresa's
Ecstasy, from Beata Ludovica Alberoni,
located in San Francesco a Ripa, Rome, Italy,
and coincidentally finished in the same year of
1675 – see Salvat 1981, p. 33 ) with drawings
from microscopic observations made by
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) on
microorganisms, and by Marcello Malpighi
(1628-1694) and Nehemiah Grew (1641-
1712), on plants (“not available”. “Personal
comment”).
The discovery of the principle of microscopy,
although still debated from historical point of
view, is attributed to brothers Hans and
Zacharias Jansen around the year of 1590
(Ivănescu & Toma 2006). Subsequently, many
"amateurs" were striving to improve and refine
microscopes, so in the 60s and 70s of the
seventeenth century, optical microscopy has
become widely used for scientific research
(naturally understood for that time), especially
in Italy, the Netherlands and England.
As a result, Hooke discovers in 1665 the plant
cell, while van Leeuwenhoek did it for some
groups of microorganisms. Thus, only in few
decades, an abyssal perceptive dichotomy is
mentally produced; people started to move
from the saints' mystic ecstasy horribly dying
in the hands of sad angels, to a real universe
The seventeenth century, so intensely debated
and commented, is the century that makes it
unable to nominate with a single phrase, as
historians are used to do, referring to a certain
historical period. The seventeenth century is
being considered so rich in events, thus
offering practically everything that can cover
the distance between the sensory and spiritual;
it is being regarded as an accurate panorama
just by its contradictions (Adriani 1982).
However, the strictly historical hierarchy often
does not perfectly fits with cultural progress,
with occurrence and flowering or collapsing
among current or artistic movements. Yet,
when making such hierarchy, it has merely an
operational purpose, derived from the need to
integrate achievements from various fields on
the time scale. Martin (1982), in his
exceptional work about the Baroque, was of
the opinion that the seventeenth century recalls
the two faces of Janus: a period of
extraordinary progress in science and
philosophy and radical changes in the
economy and in the development of the
modern state. However, this century is
characterized by further theological
controversy, an intense concern for personal
religious experience and providential spirit,
inherited from early Christianity (Martin
1982).
Sometimes, the entirely century is
superimposed over the Baroque era (Oprescu
1985, Semenzato 1981), but Chaunu (1986)
refers to the period 1680-1770 (1780) as a
dense reality, difficult to be delineated; this
époque is yet undeniable: European
Enlightenment also called and the 'Age of
Reason', triggered and maintained by the
philosophy of Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and
Spinoza. Amazing border between last
decades of the seventeenth and the first of
eighteenth century's cover dilated and dense
temporal dimensions. Descartes separated its
INTRODUCTION
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
Grigore
157
Rediscovering the first monograph on plant anatomy
completely unknown until then. This micro-
universe is invisible to the naked eye; it is
invisible, but miraculously and simply exists.
Mysterious and curious ”animalicules” do
really exist; they fearful perhaps swarming
everywhere, move and live. However, the
scrutinizer eye, curiosity and rational move
beyond the barriers of prejudices, fears and
inability to understand (“not available.”
“Personal comment”).
There are relatively abundant published
resources about Malpighi's life, historical
impact of his scientific contribution, especially
in the field of animal and human anatomy,
physiology, disease and medicine (Arber 1942,
Jay 1999, Piccolino 1999, Pearce 2007, Meli
2011, Reverón 2011, West 2013) and, of
course, the large information included in the
five-volume work by Adelmann (1966),
dealing with Marcello Malpighi and evolution
of embryology. Surprisingly, data about
Malpighi's contribution to plant anatomy are
relatively few and scattered, and especially a
work focused strictly on the analysis of his
book (1675) seems to lack. Neither
Adelmann's book is not so generous with
information dealing with the content of
Malpighi's book; in a chapter referring on
"Intensified researches on plants: the Anatome
Plantarum takes form", Adelmann states that
most of material is 'beyond the competence of
the present writer'.
The objective of this research was to (re)
discover a less known valuable historical
resource for plant sciences in general and for
plant morphology and anatomy, in special,
while for other Malpighi's contributions to
biology and medicine fields there are relatively
abundant researches.
We downloaded Malpighi's work as electronic
version (Biodiversity Heritage Library - not in
MATERIAL AND METHODS
copyright) and then worked on it as printed
material. Several clarifications regarding the
terms introduced by Malpighi can be useful.
First of all, the term cortex, - icis occurring
throughout the Malpighi's work is being used
and thus must be primarily understood with the
sense of 'bark', as explained by Evert (2006), in
the tradition founded by Esau's plant anatomy
terminology: 'a nontechnical term applied to
all tissues outside the vascular cambium or the
xylem; in older trees may be divided into dead
outer bark and living inner bark, which
consists of secondary phloem'. Indeed, many
examples provided by Malpighi refer to woody
species. The Latin common sense also covers
this definition, with reference rather to
rhytidome. In this direction, the current
English anatomical term 'cortex' and
Romanian 'scoar ă' do not fit with Malpighi's
cortex; in modern plant anatomy, the cortex is
the tissue region located between epidermis
and central cylinder in roots and stem. Another
example is that of foliola used by Malpighi to
designate the small leaves from plants' buds;
no doubt, it is a diminutive form of folia (leaf)
and thus it explains the logical derivation.
However, Romanian anatomical language also
has this term - 'foliolă', but it refers on a leaflet
from compound leaf; therefore, it has been
inherited from Latin, but has changed his
meaning. A logical connection still exists,
since the leaflet (foliolă) is indeed, a small leaf
as a part of a compound leaf.
Regarding Latin and Greek dictionaries that
have been consulted and used for our work, in
the reference list only those explicitly cited in
the text are being listed. For Malpighi's
mentioned species, corresponding common
English names were identified using Martin's
(1969) 'The concise British flora in colour.' For
general English morphological and anatomical
terms, several works have been consulted
(Harris & Harris 2001, Evert 2006, Grigore et
al. 2014) selected among a plethora of
monographs.
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
158
Grigore
We underline that Malpighi's terms used in this
book are mentioned during our work, either in
their original form (Latin) or translated into
English. In both cases, we used Italic
characters, both within text and especially in
the explanation of the figures. At the same
time, we tried, whenever possible, to avoid
excessive equivalence of terms used by
Malpighi with terms belonging to modern
plant morphology and anatomy. This was the
case especially with illustrations and
correspondent explanations offered by Italian
author. We wanted thus to maintain the
originality of a language used in an anatomical
work from seventeenth-century.
Finally, we should emphasize that at this
moment, there is no English or other language
translation of Malpighi's valuable work on
plant anatomy.
Dissecting the first part of Anatome
Plantarum by Marcello Malpighi (1675).
Facts and insights.
The first part of Malpighi's plant anatomy (Fig.
1) appears in 1675, with the full title: Anatome
Plantarum. Cui subjungitur appendix, Iteratas
& auctas ejusdem Authoris de Ovo incubato.
Observationes continens. The book is
published under the auspices of the Royal
Society of London. The work itself - except for
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1. Frontispiece and title page of Anatome Plantarum (1675), by Marcello Malpighi.
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
159
cutting up, the art of cutting up', being hence
used in surgery.
The Latin people were using two different
words for „to cut / cutting" and for "to dissect /
dissection"; in this context, the term anatome
will have been used only to designate a
dissection (cutting the body of an organism,
especially animal, but later also a plant
organism), in order to identify and visualize
the internal structures. Nevertheless, since in
the case of animal's dissections (where the
primarily Greek anatome applies), their organs
can be observed with the naked eye (thus,
without any magnifier device), probably
Malpighi has used the term anatome rather in
the sense of morphology (morpho-anatomy),
i.e. not only what can be observed using a
microscope, but also details that can be
detected by the naked eye (or magnifying
glass).
Malpighi's book is structured as follow. It starts
with Anatomes Plantarum Idea (actually, an
Introduction, in the current meaning), where
the author explains the reasons which led him
to write this book. According to Malpighi,
incidentally, covered by a spirit heating
(exaltation) of the age, penetrated (tempted) by
anatomy field, and realizing the importance of
plants as animate organisms, he took the
responsibility for the first study of its kind
(prima studia iter mihi aperirem). At the same
time, he introduces a series of specialized
terms - they appear within his text with Italic
letters. First of all, one may notice the tree
trunk (truncos), then the bark (cortex).
Of great significance is the fact that he
recognizes and treats the plant as a whole, as a
system that can be decomposed into individual
parts. At the exterior (exterior) of the plant the
cuticle (cuticula) is located, with utriculae
(utriculis) or regularly disposed horizontal
sacules (seu sacculis horizontali ordine
locatis) (disposed – a very important
observation, from anatomical point of view);
Annex about observations of the phenomenon
of incubation of chicken egg - has 82 pages, is
written in Latin, and includes at the end of the
paper, 54 plates in black & white with 336
figures.
However, it should be noted that, from the total
number of these figures, only a slight amount
(about 14 figures, either as complete plates or
as isolated images within a plate) contain
figures resulting from microscopic
observations in the basic sense of the word.
Most of them are in reality morphological
(stricto sensu) representations of organs / parts
of organs of plants.
This observation is very important, if
connected with the book's title and the current
meaning of the term "anatomy". Of course, in
the beginning, the term had a broader sense and
dealt, as we shall describe, not only with
microscopic observations. The etymology of
the word "anatomy" is derived the ancient
Greek ( – νατομή / anatomy – to dissect, to cut
referring especially on animal body) (Liddel &
Scott, 1883); however, it seems that the term
does not appear in this form in either of ancient
Greek texts known nowadays. Most likely, it
was taken and Latinized thus becoming
'anatomy' during the Middle Age. However,
our survey reveals that this word is mentioned
only in one recent consulted resource
(Diccionario Ilustrado Latino-Español,
Español-Latino 1997) from more than 12 Latin
dictionaries we dealt with. Surprisingly,
anatomie, -mia mica, ae, - in Spanish
dictionary is considered an ecclesiastical term,
although his meaning is that of 'anatomy,
dissection'. Neither the massif Oxford Latin
Dictionary (1968, 2126 pages) has mention
about or , as the latter anatomia anatome
appears in the work of Malpighi. However,
satisfactory contributions in order to clarify
this term are made by White & Riddle (1872),
in their Latin dictionary. The Greek origin is
recognized and it appears in the form anatomia
or , - , also , meaning 'a anatomica ae anatomice
Rediscovering the first monograph on plant anatomy
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
160
these are being formed annually (...) and confer
rigidity and at maturity degrade and fall.
Sometimes, after the fall of these, epidermis
can be seen (interestingly, this term does not
occur with Italics). Then, Malpighi reminds of
a network of woody fibers (ligno fibrosis
retibus) and, finally, he probably refers on
phloem (libro ?), most likely with a purely
anatomical meaning, as we know it today, yet
perhaps not necessarily with the same sense.
The word liber, -bri in Latin dictionaries has
very different meanings, most of them not
related with the phloem (or bast). However,
deeper research enables to discriminate his
sense in various resources: 'the inner bark of a
tree, rind, bast' (Oxford Latin Dictionary
1968). A special observation is made in
relation to a particular type of structures
(lactiferum), which occupies the middle
portion of the bark from a species of Ficus;
likely, there are laticiferous tissues, which may
explain the etymology of the modern term.
Under the bark, woody portion (lignea portio)
is located, which is described in quite great
detail; the term alburnus is used (alburna),
located between bark and wood. Inside the
stem, the pith (medulla) is localized.
Subsequently, a number of terms, rather of
morphology field are introduced: caudex, buds
(gemmae). Regarding the last term, Malpighi
clearly understood the correlation between
their opening and leaves' occurrence; he also
recognizes that some species may have
underground buds. However, he describes the
buds in a metaphorical but rather confusing
manner; 'thus, (buds) are like delicate
defended (protected) children who grow on the
branches until, as the opening of the uterus,
produce eggs (quasi ab aperto utero, ovo
producuntur) ". Then, he uses the terms:
leaves, flowers, seeds.
Figure 2. Longitudinal section (?) through the stem of Portulaca (succulent cortex; A – fibrous epidermal network; B – utriculae
spaces, filled with transparent juice).
Grigore
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
161
The book is then followed by a Praefatio,
where attention should be paid on the fact that
the author motivates the language used in his
work: a moderate (accessible) language,
located under the compulsion to be progressive
without sterile meditations or driven by the
temptation of a rigid, academic language.
The work is then divided into several major
chapters: (About ..):
1. Bark (de cortice). At a first glance, it
may seem surprising that a special chapter is
dedicated to cortex. However, coincidentally
or not, it is the only title of the chapters, which
appears in capital letters. From author's
explanations, we can assume that he speaks
about it as a universal structural element,
common to all plants. Thus, Nature has
covered the plants at periphery (peripheriam,
very important observation) with "(...) Cortex
(dicitur) inderdum viscus appellatur".
Therefore, Malpighi placed the cortex at the
plant' periphery, but not necessarily to its direct
exterior, i.e. in contact with the external
environment. In addition, the term viscus
means entrails, organs, or whatever lies under
the skin (Nădejde & Nădejde-Gesticone
1930). The term epidermis appears, moreover,
within Malpighi's work. In this part of the
book, the expression 'cross section' has been
noticed. Reference to figures from the end of
the book is being made in the text of the book,
as a modern element; the number of a
mentioned plate is given outside the text body,
on the edge of page, as in the older works
specific to late Middle Ages or Baroque. We
exemplify by two examples; one drawing from
a species of Portulaca (Fig. 2) and another of
chicory (Fig. 3); we keep the explanations as
offered by Malpighi (original translation
provided by terms written in Italics).
Figure 3. Cross section through the stem of chicory (A – utriculae, located under a thin cuticle; B – all the cortex occupied by
woody/lignified substance; C – woody/lignified fistulae or fibers, disposed in bundles; D – laticiferous vessels).
Rediscovering the first monograph on plant anatomy
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
At first glance, the language used by Malpighi
seems quite accurate; however, it is the first
book (monograph) of plant anatomy in the
history of botany. Referring on Portulaca - a
genus with many succulent species - Malpighi
noticed very well that the cells are turgid
(turgor means swollen, full of .., with attention
to Romanian and English etymology of several
botanical terms). In addition, the term utricule
probably refers in fact to cells or any other
regular, well-defined forms; ligneam in
adjectival form, may be in fact the
correspondent for lignified, as we understand it
today. Likely, modern anatomy taken from the
Latin ligno (which appears to Malpighi) both
terms of wood (xylem, 'lemn' in Romanian)
and a derivative adjective – lignified (lignum, -
i, wood).
2. Parts of the stem (de partibus caulem
vel caudicem componentibus). Interestingly,
Malpighi uses in this case two different terms,
apparently synonymous: caudex and caulis, as
they distinguish in modern morphology.
Nevertheless, Latin language seems to
distinguish between these two term: caudex, -
icis refers to a 'trunk or stem of a tree', while
caulis, - is seems to refer on a stem of a non-
woody plant (Oxford Latin Dictionary 1968,
Stăureanu 1932, Nădejde & Nădejde-
Gesticone 1930). In this chapter, the term
'culm' also appears, referring to wheat, but it is
written with normal letters, which may suggest
that it was already a known, popular word and
not a new introduced term. Surprisingly,
Nădejde and Nădejde-Gesticone (1930)
consider that the terms 'culmus' and 'calamus'
162
Figure 4. Cross section through a two-years old branch of horse-chestnut (A - six arranged fibrous arrays – bark; B, C – an old
pair of layers extending and producing a new extension, D, where woody bundles, E, occur; F – pith, with several different
appendices, G, H, I).
Grigore
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
are two forms of the same word, despite in the
rigorous and modern anatomical language they
are described as two words with different
meaning. In the same direction it should be
noted that Malpighi uses the term truncus
when referring to the stem (trunk) of trees.
3. The increasing of stem and nodes (de
caudices augumento & nodis). Malpighi
explicitly states that the trunks of trees display
an annual increase (growth in diameter); he
analyzed this increase (in thickness) on a
branch of horse-chestnut, noting that the bark
(cortex) of two-years old branch shows six
arranged fibrous arrays (ordinibus) (Fig.
4),while that of three-years old, eight of such
arrays (Fig. 5 ). He correctly explain that in
addition, the increase in thickness is due to the
addition of new growing rings; he clearly
concluded that 'in a single year, a new woody
circle occurs'. His drawings in this respect are
relevant to describe the growth of trunks; he
mentions a woody cylinder (ligni cylindrus),
wood bundles (ligneos fasciculos) and fibrous
bundles (fibrarum fasciculos). He also
distinguishes medullary rays.
Figure 5. Cross section through a three-year old branch of horse-chestnut (Eight arranged fibrous arrays can be noticed at the
exterior – bark; A, B, C, D – woody cylinders; E – tracheids area; F – transversal arrays, interrupted between pith and bark; G –
appendices located between fibrous bundles).
4. Buds (de gemmis). Their role in the
production of leaves or leaflets (in the case of
plants with compound leaves) is correctly
defined. A series of buds is described, such as
those of hazel and oak (Figs. 6, 7), and
longitudinal sections through them reveal the
components of shoot apex (Fig. 7, 8), in
general terms; however, the accompanied
explanations are vague and imprecise as
compared to the terminology used in the
modern anatomy.
Rediscovering the first monograph on plant anatomy
163
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
Figure 6. Bud of hazel and oak (A – multiple scales-like leaves
form, arranged at the basis of a shoot - B; C – foliar scar). Figure 7. Longitudinal section through a bud of oak (D – small
leaves).
Figure 8. Longitudinal section through a bud of Ficus species (E – falling leaves; F – stable leaf).
Grigore
164
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
5. Leaves (de foliis). General form of
many leaves (especially lamina) is described in
detail, and their phyllotaxis. Malpighi
recognizes that diversity in forms of leaves in
the plant world is so diverse, that they cannot
serve as a certain universal criterion to be used
for recognition of species. Most often, he
characterizes morphological types of leaves
(Fig. 9), and rarely offers anatomical details
(Fig. 10).
Figure 9. Leaf of wild chamomile (C – small leaves). Figure 10. Leaf of Ficus (A – globular corpuscules, filled with
transparent sap/juice).
6. Flowers (de floribus). Malpighi expressly
recognizes the involvement of flower in plant
reproduction: "(...) renovatis seminalibus
organis, novus progignatur foetus: Haec igitur
in Flore Natura conclusit (...)." Subsequently,
he describe an impressive number of flowers
(or inflorescences - in current sense), and gave
elegant drawings of them; however, the
language used to describe the floral elements is
still clumsy and imprecise. He remembers
terms such: calyx, glume, style (on his figures,
the ovary is designated instead), stamens.
We select, for example, the flower of Primula
(correctly depicted with short style) (Fig. 11)
and one in dog rose (Fig. 12).
Rediscovering the first monograph on plant anatomy
165
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
7. Seeds (seed formation, seminum
generatione) covers, in fact, a more extended
and complex issue; from the book's text and
illustrations provided by Malpighi (indeed,
detailed but inaccurate explained), we can
deduce that he deals with fertilization, embryo
formation and other components of the seed as
well as early stages of seedling' emergence.
Incidentally, he mentions again the foetus (in
utero), which may reinforce the assumption
that the term foetus, refers even in a universal
way, to the result of the fusion of sexual
gametes, thus, ultimately, to the embryo. In
addition, the term seedling explicitly occurs,
whose origin is clearly recognized as derived
from the seed (seminalis plantula).
8. Fruit formation (increasing, growing)
and its forms (de uterorum augumento &
ipsorum succedente forma). He not uses the
term fruit, but uterus, which is still quite
relevant, because Malpighi probably uses with
the sense of the ovary, which correctly explains
its involvement in the fruit formation.
However, he describes the shape and structures
of many fruits from various species (Figs. 13,
14, 15), and in a quite accurate manner, except,
again, here and there, the imprecise language.
Term 'pericarp' also occurs. In the case of
mentioned drupes, the endocarp is described as
osseum nucleum, an obvious observation
about its sclerified structure. He correctly
states that fruits content the seed or the seeds;
in the case of silicle from shepherd's purse, he
illustrates the seeds correctly (Fig. 13). The
poricidal capsule of poppy is accurately
described (Fig. 15), with all its details: the
fenestrated operculum, the pores (openings),
from where small seeds will be released.
Figure 11. Flower of Primula species (E – style). Figure 12. Flower of dog rose (B – uterus; C – style; D – tubes;
E – fistules).
Grigore
166
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
Figure 13. Silicle of shepherd's purse (D – seeds).
Figure 14. Pod of lupin.
Figure 15. Poricidal capsule (E - pores)
Rediscovering the first monograph on plant anatomy
167
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
9. De secundinis (et) contento Plantarum
foetu, a title relatively difficult to translate; it
covers a more complex although diffuse issue.
Actually, it refers on embryo development and
the changes that it undergoes prior to seed
germination and seedling formation. In some
species, such as red clover, "seedlings" are
depicted. Of course, this is in fact an early stage
immediately after seed germination and not a
seedling per se, in the fully morphological
sense (Fig. 16).
Figure 16. Seedling of red clover (A – short root, sometimes curved, above it broad, thick, frequently green color growing
cotyledons - gemina folia - being located).
In 1679, Malpighi published the second
volume of plant anatomy, Anatomes
Plantarum, pars altera, with the Royal Society
of London. The volume has 93 pages and 39
plates, comprising 142 figures. If this volume
from 1675 can be considered a general treatise
in plant anatomy, the second part, in addition to
general chapters (about seeds, roots) can be
considered, rightfully, a monograph of special
plant anatomy. It contains separate chapters on
plant galls, tumors and other hypertrophic
formations, trichomes and thorns, tendrils and
related formations, and he also deals with
heterotrophic plants (including parasites).
Malpighi's work on plant anatomy from 1675
represents, no doubt, a turning point in the
history of natural sciences (botany); it opened
a huge window into the world of knowledge by
valuing the technique of microscopic
observations, a technique that will become
sooner a revolution point in all the fields of
biology. It is written, of course, with many
hesitations, clumsiness and inaccuracies that
were, naturally, imposed by the limitations of
that époque. Malpighi's monograph can be
considered a truly modern treatise on plant
anatomy: the information is systematized in a
logical manner and explanations are
accompanied by references to the figures,
which are widely described. The material
abounds with examples of plant species, which
demonstrates that the author had extensive
knowledge of botany. He understood that his
monograph becomes really important if
combines the text with numerous examples,
and correspondent illustrations, a fundamental
aspect of actual plant morphology and
anatomy monographs.
Grigore
168
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
169
My special thanks go to John B. West, from
Department of Medicine, University of
California San Diego, La Jolla, California,
who offered me valuable information inside
Adelmann's book (1966), a resource I wasn't
able to consult by myself.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Adelmann, H.B. 1966. Marcello Malpighi and
the Evolution of Embryology (5 vols).
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
2475 pp.
Adriani, G. 1982. Pictura germană în secolul
al XVII-lea. Ed. Meridiane, Bucure ti.
210 pp.
Arber, A. 1942. Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712)
and Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694): An
essay in comparison. Isis, 34 (1): 7-16.
Chaunu, P. 1986. Civiliza ia Europei în secolul
luminilor, vol. I. Ed. Meridiane,
Bucure ti. 467 pp.s
Diccionario Vox Ilustrado Latino-Español,
Español-Latino, 1997. Bibliograf, S.A.,
Barcelona, 715 pp.
Evert, R. F. 2006. Esau's Plant Anatomy (third
ed.). John Wiley and Sons, New York.
601 pp.
Grigore, M. N., Ivănescu L. & Toma C. 2014.
Halophytes. An integrative anatomical
study. Springer, Cham, Heidelberg, New
York, Dordrecht, London. 548 pp.
Harris, J. G. & Harris M. W. 2001. Plant
id e n t if i c at i o n te r m i no l o gy. A n
illustrated glossary, second ed. Spring
Lake Publishing, Spring Lake, Utah. 206
pp.
Ivănescu L. & Toma C. 2006. De la
descoperirea celulei (1665, 1667) la
teoria celulară (1838, 1839). Studii i s
Comunicări. Muzeul de tiin e ale .
Naturii ”Ion Borcea” Bacău, 21: 13-19.
Jay, V. 1999. Marcello Malpighi. Archives of
Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 123:
874.
Liddell, H. G. & Scott R. 1883. Greek-English
th
Lexicon, 7 ed. New York, Harper &
Brothers, Franklin-Square. 1776 pp.
Malpighi, M. 1675. Anatome Plantarum.
Regiae Societati, Londini ad Scientiam
Naturalem promovendam institutae,
dicata. 82 pp.
Martin, J. R. 1982. Barocul. Ed. Meridiane,
Bucure ti. 293 pp.
Martin, W. K. 1969. The concise British flora
in colour. Ebury Press and Michael
Joseph. 254 pp.
Meli, D. B. 2011. Mechanism, experiment,
disease: Marcello Malpighi and
S e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y a n a t o m y .
Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins
University Press. 456 pp.
Nădejde I. & Nădejde-Gesticone A. 1930.
Dic ionar Latin-Român complet pentru .
licee, seminarii i universită i. Ed. t
Na ională Mecu SA, Ia i. 704 pp.t .
Oprescu, G. 1985. Manual de istoria artei.
Barocul. Ed. Meridiane, Bucure ti. 240
pp.
Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1968. Oxford at the
Clarendon Press, 2126 pp.
Pearce, J. M. S. 2007. Malpighi and the
Discovery of Capillaries. European
Neurology, 58: 253-255.
Piccolino, M. 1999. Marcello Malpighi and the
difficult birth of modern life sciences.
Endeavour, 23: 175-179.
Reverón, R. R. 2011. Marcello Malpighi
(1628-1694), founder of microanatomy.
International Journal of Morphology, 29:
399-402.
Salvat, J. (ed.). 1981. Historia del Arte, vol. 7.
Salvat Editores, S.A., Barcelona, 299 pp.
Semenzato, C. 1981. Arte, part 2. Culturama.
Gran Enciclopedia temático-visual, vol.
7. Ediciones Danae, s.a., Barcelona,
Spain. 536 pp.
Stăureanu, M. 1932. Dic ionar Latin-Român. t
Edit. “Scrisul Românesc”, Craiova, 578
pp.
Rediscovering the first monograph on plant anatomy
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
170
English Dictionary, vol. I, 4th ed.
London, Longmans, Green, and Co.
1034 pp.
West, J. B. 2013. Marcello Malpighi and the
discovery of the pulmonary capillaries
and alveoli. American Journal of
Physiology - Lung Cellular and
Molecular Physiology, 304: L383-L390.
White, J. T. & Riddle, J. E. 1872. A Latin- Received January 14, 2016.
Accepted February 23, 2016.
Grigore
The Biologist (Lima). Vol. 14, Nº2, jul-dec 2016
