Résumé Les zoophytes, étranges êtres mi-animaux mi-végétaux, fascinent les naturalistes depuis l’Antiquité. Ces hybrides sont généralement conçus comme des êtres intermédiaires qui rendent sensible la continuité naturelle à travers l’échelle du vivant. Mais quand il s’agit des « conches anatifères », des coquillages écossais que l’on dit naître du bois pourri et engendrer des oiseaux (les bernaches), le savoir naturaliste de la Renaissance atteint ses limites. Les érudits discutent de la possibilité du phénomène en reconsidérant les théories de la (...) génération spontanée et en enquêtant sur ces merveilleux coquillages présents dans certains cabinets de curiosités. Remise en cause, la légende s’envole un peu plus loin, jusqu’en Chine, pour survivre à l’examen critique. (shrink)

In 1682, Nehemiah Grew included An Idea of a Philosophical History of Plants as the first text in his Anatomy of Plants. The former consists of a broad programme to study vegetation from a material standpoint. In addition to the mechanical and chymical investigation of plants, generally supported by microscopic observations—a core methodology of the Royal Society—in the text Grew engaged with some more philosophical and theoretical issues. Still, despite Grew's creditable attempt to produce a coherent and comprehensive science of (...) plants, the absence of a definition of vegetable life has an impact on his ability to understand plants in their own right. For instance, a few questions that emerged as Grew addressed zoophytes and other bodies blurred the line between vegetables and animals. Only in the Cosmologia sacra (1701) did Grew propound a definition of vegetable life with a more complete schema. Is the philosophy of plants a bridge between Grew's works? In this article, I contextualize his philosophical approach, explore the features of his text, and advance the possibility of answering this question positively, although the significant distance between Grew's experimental study of plants in the Anatomy and the physico-theology of the Cosmologia makes a connection between the two texts difficult. In the end, this unbridgeable gulf broadly shaped early modern botanical studies. (shrink)

This study presents the first translation from Latin to English of the Linnaean dissertationMundus invisibilisorThe Invisible World, submitted by Johannes Roos in 1769. The dissertation highlights Linnaeus's conviction that infectious diseases could be transmitted by living organisms, too small to be seen. Biographies of Linnaeus often fail to mention that Linnaeus was correct in ascribing the cause of diseases such as measles, smallpox and syphilis to living organisms. The dissertation itself reviews the work of many microscopists, especially on zoophytes (...) and insects, marvelling at the many unexpected discoveries. It then discusses and quotes at length the observations of Münchhausen suggesting that spores from fungi causing plant diseases germinate to produce animalcules, an observation that Linnaeus claimed to have confirmed. The dissertation then draws parallels between these findings and the contagiousness of many human diseases, and urges further studies of this ‘invisible world’ since, as Roos avers, microscopic organisms may cause more destruction than occurs in all wars. (shrink)