664 Ulisse Aldrovandi

small creatures, like gnats, fly out shortly after; but for the sake of brevity, we omit countless other examples of this kind.

Having established this correspondence between plants and animals, it seems consistent with reason to assert, along with Aristotle, that monstrosities necessarily occur in plants just as they do in animals—though they are less frequent. This is because it is easier for errors to occur in the workings of many complex parts joined together with marvelous skill, such as those that make up animals, than to commit an error in the simpler parts that constitute plants.

However, before we approach specific plant monstrosities, it is better to distinguish between the various ways they are understood. Plant monsters can be classified as either "proper" or "improper." These latter, improper types are understood in two ways: first, when something truly prodigious happens to a plant; and second, when Nature, in a playful mood, uses some lines on a tree’s foliage, flower, or trunk to express the image of a thing with such skill that it seems to everyone to have been industriously painted. Or, Nature may shape a root or a branch with various twists and bumps so that it resembles a carving of some object.

But when we consider plant monsters in the proper sense, they present themselves in two further categories: those produced naturally and those created through art. By human skill, plants are rendered monstrous in two ways: either through grafting—when a single tree produces two or three kinds of flowers or fruits—or through the compression or binding of fruits or tender plants such that their natural shape is altered. Natural plant monsters, on the other hand, are those created when Nature, hindered by some obstruction, commits an error in the roots, stalks, leaves, flowers, or fruits. An example is when two or three fruits are joined together within the narrow space of a branch, which is similar to what happens in the wombs of animals when two fetuses are fused together due to a lack of space.

Although many authors, and especially Aristotle, have asserted that monsters are rarely produced in plants in this last way, they offer several reasons: first, because the "seed" of plants is drier compared to the seed of animals (which is softer and thus more susceptible to any alteration); and second, because animals possess a greater number of constituent parts than plants, and the deficiency of any one of these parts results in a monster. Nevertheless, through diligent observation, we have discovered many monstrosities in plants as well. For this reason, we have decided to illustrate this history with various images of this kind.

# PRODIGIOUS PLANT MONSTERS

We read of many monsters, indeed prodigious ones, that have been seen in various plants at different times. Gualterius, for instance, cites Sigibertus as the author who described a certain elder tree that, contrary to its usual habit, bore grapes; he claimed that over time the flowers and fruits of this elder had been transformed into those of a grapevine. This might be true, unless perhaps he was deceived by that species of elder which produces fruit very similar to grapes, which is commonly called the "Muscat Elder" (Sambucus muscatella) by herbalists today in their gardens, because when its fruits are tasted, they recall the flavor of Muscat grapes.

Be that as it may, we do not deny that many unusual things of this kind have been observed in plants, especially since Pliny testifies that grain grew on trees in the year 3765 of the world (198 BC), the year when Plautus of Sarsina in Umbria died at Rome—who, due to a grain shortage, had hired himself out to a baker to work the hand-mills. Likewise, according to Lycosthenes, in the year 3831 of the world (132 BC), in Bologna