Flora Unveiled

The Two-Sex Model j 335

335 335

Grew had zero experimental evidence to support his conjecture that flowers were her-

maphroditic. He argued entirely by analogy, citing hermaphrodism in snails:^29

That the same Plant is both Male and Female, may the rather be believed, in that

Snails, and some other Animals, are such. And the Parts which imitate the Menses,

and the Sperm, are not precisely the same: the former, being the External Parts of the

Attire, and the Sap, which feeds them; the latter, the small Particles or moyst Powder

which the External enclose.

Despite his observation about the phallic appearance of the Attire, Grew was quite eva-

sive about its sexual identity. If the Attire initially functioned as the menses, did that mean

that the sperm was the same as the menses? No, he states, the Attire (“the Parts which imi-

tate the Menses”) and the “Sperm” are “not precisely the same.” Only the “small Particles or

moyst Powder” are unequivocally identified by Grew as the male structure of the flower.^30

(b)

Figure 12.3 Continued