The Linnaean Era j 351351 351
firsts in the new field of pollination biology, including the discovery of bee pollination and
the production of the first artificial plant hybrid. Some eighteenth- century British garden-
ers clearly understood that by demonstrating that plants could hybridize with one another,
they were not only confirming the sexual theory, they were also opening the door to the
creation of lucrative, new horticultural varieties.
We begin our narrative of the sexual theory during the Linnaean era with some of his
important predecessors in Paris. Although French botanists, unlike their English counter-
parts, enjoyed considerable support from the French Academy, the environment in which
they worked was fiercely competitive, especially among younger scientists, fostering a desire
for quick results in order to gain fame.Plant Sex at the French Royal Academy of Sciences
Research in plant biology at the French Academy during the early eighteenth century had
both descriptive and experimental components. Physiological experiments had focused pri-
marily on the problem of the ascent of sap, inspired by Harvey’s model for the circulation of
the blood.^2 Significant experimental work was also conducted on reproduction in nonseed
plants, including algae, fungi, bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts), and ferns. Joseph
Pitton de Tournefort studied the origin of spores in ferns, bryophytes, and fungi, mistaking
them for seeds. René- Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur was investigating sexual reproduction
in the marine alga, Fucus, identifying what he called male and female “flowers” as well as
“seeds.” Jean Marchant was carrying out parallel studies on the liverwort species that later
would be named in his honor: Marchantia.
Botanists at the Academy kept up with the publications of the Royal Society of London
and were aware of Malpighi’s anatomical description of the flower as well as Grew’s sex-
ual theory. In a 1683 article in the Memoirs of the Academy, Marchant further elaborated
Malpighi’s uterine analogy of the flower, comparing it point by point to the mammalian
female reproductive system:the style is to the flowers what the [Fallopian] tubes of the womb are to the animals,
and it contains in its membranes the siliques which take the place of the chorion and
the amnios, providing the air which is necessary for perfecting the seed which links to
the placenta through its umbilical cord.Significantly, Marchant omitted any mention of Grew’s comparison of the stamen to a
penis. His reticence about Grew’s two- sex model was shared by his colleague, Tournefort,
the newly appointed Professor of Botany at the Jardin du Roi. Tournefort continued to
espouse the classical interpretation of pollen as a waste product. He regarded the stamen
as a mere “vessel of excretion,” the vilest part of the flower, unworthy of serious study.
Tournefort’s stubborn opposition to the sexual theory was to dominate French botany for
the next twenty years. His influence was felt outside of France as well. For example, Giulio
Pontedera, the Director of the botanical garden and Professor of Botany at Padua, Italy,
in his Anthologia of 1720, reiterated Tournefort’s views on pollen as a waste product and
described the male flowers of dioecious plants as useless appendages. Consistent with an