Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision as of 20:13, 7 June 2011 by Wtrettien (Created page with 'Bolam, Jeanne. "The Botanical Works of Nehemiah Grew, F.R.S. (1641-1712)." Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 27: 219-31. :"In trying to follow grew's thought it is illuminating to look a…')
Bolam, Jeanne. "The Botanical Works of Nehemiah Grew, F.R.S. (1641-1712)." Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 27: 219-31.
- "In trying to follow grew's thought it is illuminating to look at the models and analogies that he saw fit to use. They are from three main sources; the mechanical modesl so typical of the intellectual currency of the time, the analogies with animal structure and physiology which provided a starting point for the study of plants, and the simple domestic metaphors which were all his own. Like most scientific models, these were almost always two-edged." (226)
seems to claim animal analogy prevented Grew from understanding the circulation of sap in plants
- Grew's "outlook was original and essentially modern in at least three important respects, all of which were to prove fruitful for botanical investigation. First he insisted on the use of comparison to interpret plant form. Secondly he looked for the explanation of structure in terms of function and mechanics. Lastly he was convinced that the importance of a plant organ must be primarily related to the plant itself and not to man, God or some general economy of nature." (229)