Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Concise History of Science in India c11: 7 Botany

A Concise History of Science in India c11

Language
English

Contents

7 Botany

Prehistoric Period

c11.s1.1

K. A. CHOWDHURY

c11.s1.2

THE prehistoric period is many times longer than the historic period. It is now believed that for about half a million years wandering men in small groups lived the life of food-gatherers, taking shelter sometimes in caves and at other times leading a natural life in the open. It was during this period that stone tools were brought into use for the purpose of hunting. This period is known as the Old Stone Age. Some archaeologists believe that wood, a botanical product, was also used along with stone during this era, but actual evidence of use of wood is known only from the late Palaeolithic Age. At this time men of the Clactonian culture in England used yew-wood (*Taxus baccatus* L.) for spear. About the same time an entire spear of yew-wood, as Hawkes and Woolley have discussed, was found in Germany that there was some contact between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamian (URS) civilizations. Here Helbaek’s opinion is interesting. He has pointed out that these two cereals have been cultivated together from the very beginning of village-farming in De Candolle did not believe it.a The earliest direct evidence of the use of rice in India, as shown by Chowdhury (K. A.), is from Hastinapur, near Meerut—a chalcolithic site (about 3,000 years old). At Hastinapur, only charred paddy was found but also the use of rice-husk as a binder for mud wall of houses. This has raised the possibility of the use of rice in north India much earlier than the age of Hastinapur indicates, because the use of a by-product comes to people when they have made use of the main natural product for a pretty long time. This interpretation is well supported by two written documents. Firstly, rice is mentioned in the *Atharvaveda*. Secondly, āyurvedic literature written by Suśruta recommends rice as cures for certain ailments. All these evidences strongly support the view that rice was used as food hundreds of years before 1000 B.C. Again, occurrences of rice-husk have recently been reported by Ghosh (S. S.) from Gujarat. The age is said to be 2000–1600 B.C. The sites were Lothal in Gujarat and Rangpur in Saurashtra. But Mittre has raised some doubt over this identification because of insufficient material available to Ghosh. It will therefore be judicious to be on the look-out for further evidence of rice from Harappan excavations before we can be sure that it was used as food at that time. Here Mittre's report on rice from the chalcolithic site of Navdatoli-Maheshwar in western India is interesting. He identified these remains as *Oryza sativa* L. This is the first record of ancient rice from south India. We must await more such finds from this part of India before we attempt a profitable discussion on it.

c11.s1.3

*Ragi*

c11.s1.4

Sankalia and his co-workersb have excavated a large number of pre-historic sites in south India. In course of their investigations they found out ragi (*Eleusine coracana* (L.) Gaertn.) at a site of 2000 B.C. The origin of ragi is said to be Indian. Many more sites of ancient ragi have to be located before we can confirm the belief that ragi originated in India.

Cotton

c11.s1.t1.1

Cotton (*Gossypium* sp.), a commercially important plant product of the present century, can be traced back to Indus Valley civilization. From Mohenjo-daro, fragments of cotton cloth and string were recovered. Microscopic examination by Gulati and Turner of these fragments led to their identification as lint from *G. arboreum* which is now extensively grown in India. Researches on the origin of old world cotton are interesting in this context. In 1947, Hutchinson, Silow and Stephens put forward the hypothesis that cultivated cotton arose in the Indus Valley but later Hutchinsonc has rejected it and suggested an alternative area in Africa. Much earlier, Wattd pointed out that India derived some of its original stock of cotton from Africa. Work in this direction is being continued. Recently a few cotton seeds with lint and fuzz have been discovered at an excavation at Nubia, Egypt. Microscopic examination has shown its resemblance to *G. herbaceum* group. From these facts it will be seen that much research will be necessary before the origin of present-day cotton is finally determined.

c11.s1.t1.2

a Chalam and Venkateshwarlu, p. 180.

c11.s1.t1.3

b Sankalia (2), pp. 28–40.

c11.s1.t1.4

c Hutchinson (J. B.), p. 225.

c11.s1.t1.5

d Watt, pp. 193, 321.

c11.s1.t1.6

As regards written information on cotton, Browna has drawn attention to its first reference in the *Ṛgveda*. Later, religious books of Manu also mention cotton. Greek writers, Herodotus and Theophrastus, report about cotton which comes from fruit of some wild trees in India. Indians not only grew cotton but also devised methods of ginning, spinning and weaving it into clothes. Despite the primitive nature of the gears, the final product was excellent and admired by foreigners who visited the country during early centuries.

Wood

c11.s1.t2.1

The oldest record of use of wood, in the Indian region, is from Harappa proper and from sites of Harappan culture in Gujarat. In the former two woods were found to have been used from a coffin, namely deodar (*Cedrus deodara* Loud.) and rosewood (*Dalbergia latifolia* Roxb.). Both are well known for the scent that they give off. Other wood remains found here and examined by Chowdhury and Ghosh (1) were used for a wooden mortar (*Zizyphus mauritiana* Lamk. Syn. *Z. jujuba* Lam. non Mill.) for pounding grains. Choice of these woods for specific purposes shows not only knowledge of where the trees grow but also of the characteristic qualities of the woods used. Here is a strong evidence to show that Harappan culture was based on years of experience on the use of this botanical product. The charred timbers recovered from Lothal in Gujarat and studied by Rao and Lal were *Acacia* sp., *Albizzia* sp., *Tectona grandis* L. f., *Adina cordifolia* (Roxb.), Benth. and Hook., *Soymida febrifuge* A. Juss. This is a clear indication that the Harappans knew of the quality of these timbers nearly as much as we know of them today.

c11.s1.t2.2

Of the old wood, special mention should be made of the two largest remains of wooden tools and implements which have been found at Burzhom in Kashmir and Chirand in Bihar, belonging to the neolithic complex of these sites. These remains indicate the various types of trees and plants which were used by the neolithic people of those areas.

c11.s1.t2.3

The other plant remains of later age are *Dalbergia sissoo* Roxb. and *Holarrhena antidysenterica* Wall. from Hastinapur, a chalcolithic site; these were used as firewoods (Chowdhury and Ghosh (3)). Near about the historic period (2,000 years) at Pataliputra a wooden palisade was put up as a protective measure against erosion by the River Ganges. The wood piles were of sal (*Shorea robusta* Gaertn.), one of the most durable timbers in India, when used in contact with soil. The quality of the wood of the piles was estimated to be one of the best that sal can produce (Chowdhury and Ghosh (4)). For a gate at Sisupalgarh the timber used was *Acacia* sp. (Chowdhury and Ghosh (2)). An analysis of the use of all these wood remains invariably gives the impression that prehistoric men possessed sufficient sound knowledge of the properties of wood to make good use of them.

c11.s1.t2.4

a Brown, p. 2.

c11.s1.t2.5

Now coming to ancient literature, there are many instances of reference on the uses of wood. Occasionally, instructions regarding timbers to be used for various purposes were also given. When an analysis of these instructions is made, one gets the impression that basic knowledge on the seasoning properties of wood was available at that time. For the first time mention is also made of the craftsmen called *vaddhaki* who worked with wood.

c11.s1.t2.6

Thus it will be seen that the people of India had acquired a sound knowledge of the properties of wood and its efficient utilization even about 5,000 years ago. If the people of Vedic Age can be credited with the practices of the rotation of agricultural crops, the credit of woodworking certainly belongs to a people of a much earlier age.

The Vedic and Post-Vedic Period

c11.s2.1

A. K. GHOSH *and* S. N. SEN

The Vedic Period

c11.s2.t1.1

If the prehistoric period furnished evidence of the cultivation of cereals like wheat, barley, rice and ragi and of the use of woods of several varieties, it would be too natural to expect to find references to them in the literary records of the early historic period characterized by the composition of the *Saṃhitās*, the *Brāhmaṇas* and the *Āraṇyakas-Upaniṣads*. These records indeed bear ample testimony to the development of agriculture as an important factor in the Vedic economy. The *Ṛgveda* has frequent references to the use of the plough, the sowing of seeds, the cutting of corn with the sickle, the threshing and winnowing of the corn, the practice of channel irrigation and the like. Agricultural pursuits definitely made further progress in the later phase of the Vedic culture as is evidenced by the use of larger and heavier plough, mention of several types of agricultural produce such as wheat, beans, corn, sesamum, extraction of oil from sesamum, relationship between seasons and the harvest, plant diseases and some attempt to deal with them with magical spell. The growing acquaintance with plant life is further reflected in the appreciation of the medicinal properties of plants and in the appearance of a class of Atharvan priests specializing in the herbal treatment of diseases. Of no less importance is the diversification of the industrial life witnessed during this period, in which a number of industries were clearly based on agriculture, e.g. basket-making, rope-making, dyeing, chariot-making, and so on.

c11.s2.t1.2

Botanical Knowledge Contained in the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads

c11.s2.t1.3

What glimpse, if any, of the development of a kind of plant science do we obtain from such literary records as also from the bulk of the ritualistic materials in which the *Saṃhitās*, the *Brāhmaṇas* and the *Āraṇyakas*-*Upaniṣads* abound? The main difficulty lies in the scattered nature of the materials bearing on plants, as on several other matters of scientific interest, in these sacerdotal texts. Botany as a systematized branch of knowledge had not yet developed, and its evolution as a subject of specialized interest did not take place until after a much later date. Nevertheless, by arranging and regrouping these scattered materials under meaningful heads in which it is now customary to describe the plant science, it is possible to get a fair idea of the Vedic Indians regarding the morphology and internal structure of plants, their physiology and also whether at such distant date any attempt was made at their classification.

c11.s2.t1.4

As to morphology, different parts of a plant body such as the root, the shoot, stems, branches, leaves, flowers and fruits are distinguished and clearly named in the *Saṃhitās*, *Brāhmaṇas* and *Upaniṣads*. The *Ṛgveda* uses the term *skandha* for the trunk or corona of the tree. The *Taittirīya* and the *Vājasaneyī Saṃhitās* enumerate the parts of a plant body as *mūla* (root), *tūla* (shoot), *kāṇḍa* (stem), *valśa* (twig), *śākhā* (branch), *parṇa* (leaf), *puṣpa* (flower) and *phala* (fruit).a In the well-known hymn of the *Atharvaveda*, dealing with medicinal plants, similar descriptions of plant bodies are met with.b The plants are differently coloured—brown (*babhru*), white (*śukra*), red (*rohiṇī*), black (*kṛṣṇa*), spotted (*pṛśni*) and swarthy (*asiknī*). They are also of different types; some are of the spreading variety (*prastṛṇatī*), some bushy (*stambinī*), some jointed (*kāṇḍinī*), some rich in shoots (*aṃśumatī*), some singly calyxed (*eka-śuṅgā*), some plants have spreading branches (*viśākhā*) and some by nature tend to extend (*pratanvatī*). The different parts are referred to as follows:

c11.s2.t1.5

‘Honied are the roots of these herbs, honied their tops, honied their middles, honied their leaves, honied their blossoms...’

‘Those that have flowers, those that have blossoms, those that bear fruit and those that are without fruit...’c

c11.s2.t1.6

It is futile to expect any detailed knowledge of the internal structure of plants, but some gross anatomy of the plant body is indicated in the *Ṛgveda* which clearly distinguishes wood (*dāru*) from the softer part of a tree. Majumdar (G. P.) (1) observes that the ancient Hindus differentiated the stem broadly into two parts—the outer called the *tvac*, *valkala* (skin) and the inner the *sāra*, that is the wood or essence enclosing the pith (*majjā*) and lasting till the end. The *Taittirīya Saṃhitā* separates the outer part into two layers, the outer *valka* and the inner *valkala*. The *Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad*, while comparing a human being with a tree, provides some information about the internal structure of the latter as follows:

c11.s2.t1.7

a *oṣadhibhyaḥ svāhā mūlebhyaḥ svāhā tūlebhyaḥ svāhā kāṇḍebhyaḥ svāhā valśebhyaḥ svāhā puṣpebhyaḥ svāhā phalebhyaḥ svāhā | vanaspatibhyaḥ svāhā mūlebhyaḥ svāhā tūlebhyaḥ svāhā skandhobhyaḥ svāhā śākhābhyaḥ svāhā parṇebhyaḥ svāhā puṣpebhyaḥ svāhā ||* —*Taitt. S.*, VII, 3.19–20.

c11.s2.t1.8

b *AV.*, VIII, 7.

c11.s2.t1.9

c *AV.*, VIII, 12.27; Eng. trans. by Bloomfield.

c11.s2.t1.10

‘A man is indeed like a mighty tree; his hairs are his leaves and his skin is its outer bark. The blood flows from the skin (of man), so does the sap from the skin (of the tree). Thus blood flows from a wounded man in the same manner as sap from a tree that is struck. His flesh (corresponds to what is) within the inner bark, his nerves are as tough as the inner fibres (of the tree). His bones lie behind his flesh as the wood lies behind the soft tissue (*śakara*). The marrow (of the human bone) resembles the pith (of the tree).’a

c11.s2.t1.11

It is clearly noticed that a plant is divided internally into an epidermis (*tvac*), a bast or softer tissue (*śakara*), fibrous tissue (*kināṭa*) within the bast, the inner wood (*dāru*) and the pith (*majjā*) embedded in the wood.

c11.s2.t1.12

From the use of such words as *śakṛt* (animal refuse) and *karīṣa* (dried cow-dung) in the *Ṛgveda* some scholars have inferred the knowledge of manuring, but such an interpretation does not readily follow from the context. The Ṛgvedic expression, *ā nimrucaḥ śakṛdeka apābharatkim . . .*, means ‘one carries off the refuse at the sunset’. In the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*, the cow-dung is hailed at one place, e.g. *yacchakṛt karoti tasmai svāhā*, but it does not imply knowledge of manuring. Somewhat indicative, however, is the following statement in the *Atharvaveda*:b

c11.s2.t1.13

*karīṣiṇīm phalavatīm svadhāmīrām ca no gṛhe* |
*audumbarasya tejasā dhātā puṣṭiṃ dadhātu me* ||

c11.s2.t1.14

which has been translated by Whitney as follows:

c11.s2.t1.15

‘Rich in manure, rich in fruit, *svadhā* and cheer in our house-prosperity let *dhātar* assign to me through the keenness of the (amulet of) *udumbara*.’

c11.s2.t1.16

The *Taittirīya Saṃhitā* clearly mentions the ripening of corn twice in the year, *dviḥ saṃvatsarasya sasyam pacyate*,c but whether it also indicates rotation of crops, as stated by Majumdar,a is difficult to follow. Some idea as to the manufacture and storage of food may be obtained from stray references in the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*, and the *Maitrāyaṇī* and the *Kāṭhaka Saṃhitās*, where waters are regarded as the essence of the earth (*pṛthivyāḥ āpaḥ*), herbs as the essence of water (*apāmoṣadhyāḥ*), flowers as the essence of herbs (*oṣadhīnām puṣpāṇi*) and fruits as the essence of flowers (*puṣpānām phalāni*).b

c11.s2.t1.17

a *yathā vṛkṣo vanaspatiḥ tathaiva puruṣo’mṛṣā* | *lomāni parṇāni tvag asyotpāṭikā bahiḥ* || *tvac evāsya rudhiram prasyandi tvac utpaṭaḥ* | *tasmād tadātṛṇṇāt praiti raso vṛkṣād ivāhatat* || *māṃsānyasya śakarāṇi kināṭam snāva tat sthiram* | *asthīnyantarato dāruṇi majjā majjopamā kṛtā* || —*Bṛh. Up.*, iii, 9.28.

c11.s2.t1.18

b *AV.*, XIX, 31.3.

c11.s2.t1.19

c *Taitt. S.*, V, I, 7.3.

c11.s2.t1.20

From the time of the *Ṛgveda*, some conscious effort at classification is reflected in the naming of plants based on their morphological characteristics. Plants are in the first place broadly divided into three groups, e.g. trees (*vṛkṣa*), herbs (*oṣadhi*) and creepers (*vīrūdh*). Plants are also classified as flowering (*puṣpavatī*) and non-flowering, fruit-bearing (*phalavatī*) and fruitless.c All types of grass are described as *tṛṇa*. The *Atharvaveda*, as we have already noticed, subdivides the herbs into several types according to their morphological or other special properties, e.g. *prastṛnatī* (spreading), *stambinī* (bushy), *eka-śuṅgā* (with single calyx), *pratanvatī* (extending), *aṃśumatī* (rich in shoots), *kāṇḍinī* (jointed), *viśākhā* (having extending branches), *jīvalā* (lively), *naghāriṣā* (harmless) and *madhumatī* (richly sweet). Another interesting feature noticed in the *Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā*, *Tattirīya Brāhmaṇa* and the *Atharvaveda* is the description of an entire locality by the type of plants growing in that area, e.g. *naḍvala* (a place abounding in reeds), *śīpālya* (a region where the plant *śīpala* grows).

Post-Vedic Classical Period

c11.s2.t2.1

Plant Science in Medical Works

c11.s2.t2.2

For tracing the development of plant science in this period, we have again to depend largely on varied types of Sanskrit literature. In the first place, we have the medical treatises of Caraka, Suśruta, Vāgbhaṭa and their various recensions and commentaries, which carried on and further developed the Vedic emphasis on herbals for the treatment and cure of diseases and in the process recorded further progress made in the plant science in general. Caraka unhesitatingly observes that a pharmacologist is one who knows the uses and actions of herbs though he may not know their forms (morphology), but an expert physician is one who knows the herbs botanically, pharmacologically and in every other respect.d According to the *Dhanvantari Nighaṇṭu*, 'the physician does well to master *bheṣaja-vidyā* by acquainting himself with the various names of plants in Sanskrit and Prākṛt, consulting all classes of men, by personal observations, by a careful handling, as well as by a careful consideration of its specific characters and sexuality’.a The use of the term *bheṣajavidyā* is significant inasmuch as it implies the existence of a separate science devoted to the study of plants and plant-life with special reference to their medicinal properties.

c11.s2.t2.3

a Majumdar (G. P.) (5), p. 103.

c11.s2.t2.4

b *Bṛh. Up.*, vi, 4.1; *Mait. S.*, II, 4.8; *Kāṭh. S.*, XI, 10.

c11.s2.t2.5

c *RV.*, X, 97.15.

c11.s2.t2.6

d *yogavittvapyarūpajñastāsāṃ tattvaviducyate* | *kiṃ punaryo vijānīyādoṣadhīḥ sarvathā bhiṣak* || —*CS. Sū.*, I, 122.

c11.s2.t2.7

*Plant Science in the Purāṇas, Arthaśāstra and Bṛhatsaṃhitā*

c11.s2.t2.8

The *Agnipurāṇa*, the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* have each a section or sections devoted to plant science (*vṛkṣāyurveda*) in general. These sections deal with collection and selection of seeds, germination, grafting, cutting, sowing, planting and nursing, soil selection, manuring, meteorological conditions favourable for plant growth, location of plants for improving the aesthetic and hygienic surroundings of the homestead, etc. All these sections, in which the agricultural bias is predominant, give one the impression that a separate *vṛkṣāyurveda* had been in existence concurrently with works on agriculture. Kauṭilya, in his chapter on the duties of the Superintendent of Agriculture, used the term *kṛṣitantra-gulma-vṛkṣāyurveda* and possibly indicated two departments of knowledge, one the *kṛṣitantra* dealing with agriculture and the other *gulmavṛkṣāyurveda* dealing with plant science. The existence of plant science as a separate branch of knowledge is also corroborated by Vātsyāyana’s *Kāmasūtra* in which *vṛkṣāyurveda* is mentioned as one of the 64 arts recognized in ancient India. The existence of the *Kṛṣi Parāśara*, a well-known treatise on agriculture, has long since been known. The discovery of a manuscript of the *vṛkṣāyurveda*, also attributed to Parāśara, which we shall discuss in some detail further on, has now left no doubt as to the development of plant science as a separate branch of knowledge by its own right, possibly during the post-Vedic period, but before the beginning of the Christian era.

c11.s2.t2.9

*Philosophical and Miscellaneous Texts*

c11.s2.t2.10

The *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* texts and their commentaries, Amara’s lexicography and the epics, the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*, occasionally provide botanical information of value.

c11.s2.t2.11

*Parāśara’s Vṛkṣāyurveda*

c11.s2.t2.12

In contrast to the type of literature mentioned above which is concerned with medicine, polity, epic poetry or matters of general interest and which deals with, or refers to, certain aspects of botany only incidentally, Parāśara’s *Vṛkṣāyurveda* is a full-fledged treatise on plant science. A copy of the manuscript of this much referred to botanical work was discovered by the late Vaidyaśāstrī Jogendranath Viṣagratna of Navadwip, whose son N. N. Sircar published an account of it, with extensive quotations, in the *Journal of the Asiatic Society* in 1950. The work possibly dates from the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. Written in the *sūtra* style, the work is divided into six parts, e.g. *bījotpattikāṇḍa*, *vanaspatikāṇḍa*, *vānaspatyakāṇḍa*, *vīrūdhavallīkāṇḍa*, *gulma-kṣupakāṇḍa* and *cikitsitakāṇḍa*. The last part dealing with the treatment of plant diseases is missing from the extant manuscript. The first part, the *bījotpattikāṇḍa*, is further subdivided into eight chapters, e.g. *bījotpattisūtrīyādhyāya* (an outline of plant morphology), *bhūmivargādhyāya* (nature and properties of soil), *vanavargādhyāya* (description and distribution of forests), *vṛkṣāṅgasūtrīyādhyāya* (more detailed treatment of the morphology of plant members), *puṣpāṅgasūtrīyādhyāya* (flower, its parts, functions and classification), *phalāṅgasūtrīyādhyāya* (definition, function and classification of fruits), *aṣṭāṅgasūtrīyādhyāya* (discussion of eight plant limbs—root, stem, bark, heartwood, sap, excretions, oleaginous products and spines and prickles) and *dvigaṇīyādhyāya* (seeds and embryonic plants).

c11.s2.t2.13

a Majumdar (G. P.) (1), pp. 8-9.

c11.s2.t2.14

Sircar states that *Vṛkṣāyurveda* evidently formed the basis of botanical teaching preparatory to pharmaceutical studies in ancient India, an arrangement comparable to modern practice. It also appears that Parāśara's method of botanical nomenclature based on three types of synonyms, e.g. those of botanical significance (*paricayajñāpikā saṃjñā*), those with therapeutic index (*guṇaprakāśikā saṃjñā*) and those associated with names of habitats or special events, was largely followed by Caraka, Suśruta and other authors of medical treatises in preparing chapters on āyurvedic pharmacopoeias. Accordingly, a further importance attaches to this work inasmuch as it can help in the identification of plants mentioned in ancient medical treatises.

Botanical Knowledge of the Period

c11.s2.t3.1

We shall now attempt to summarize the botanical knowledge as developed in this period and preserved in the various texts mentioned above, including Parāśara's special monograph on plant science. As before, it will be profitable to assess the materials under the conventional subject divisions such as seed and germination, morphology, physiology, ecology, taxonomy, and so on.

c11.s2.t3.2

Seed and Germination

c11.s2.t3.3

The technical term used for the seed is *bīja*. The seed is enclosed in a vessel called *bījakoṣa*. The kernel or endosperm is called *sasya* and the cotyledon *bījapatra*. Parāśara uses the term *bījamātṛkā* to denote cotyledon and recognizes monocotyledonous (*ekamātṛkavīja*) and dicotyledonous (*dvimātṛkavīja*) seeds. By this term is also meant the endosperm (*vījamātṛkā tu vījasasyam*), enclosing the *ādivījapatra* which may mean either the plumule or the cotyledon itself, which appears as the first leaf after germination. The cotyledon stores food material for the nourishment of the embryo.

c11.s2.t3.4

Germination is expressed by the term *aṅkurodbheda*, which means sprouting of the seed to life; *aṅkura* means the seedling. Conditions for successful germination are given as air, water and the season guaranteeing the proper warmth. According to Suśruta, proper season, good soil, requisite supply of water and good seeds all taken together help in the germination of seed.a Guṇaratna in his commentary on the *Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya* states that the seeds of *vaṭa* (*Ficus indica*), *pippala* (*Ficus religiosa*), *nimba* (*Melia azadirachta*) and others germinate during the rainy season under the influence of dew and air.b

c11.s2.t3.5

Parāśara gives a more graphic description of the process of germination. During the sprouting up of the seedling (*praroha*), its body receives nourishment from the cotyledons. This nourishment enables the seedling to grow until its root develops and comes of its own. The cotyledons dry up as soon as the seedling is able independently to receive nourishment directly from the soil of the earth.c

c11.s2.t3.6

Morphology

c11.s2.t3.7

*Root*

c11.s2.t3.8

Plants are divided broadly into two parts, the subterranean part called *mūla* (root) and the aerial part called *vistāra* or *tūla* (shoot). The *mūla* means an organ by which the plant is fixed to the soil. The use of the word *pādapa* to mean a plant is significant as it implies the ability of the plant to absorb water from the soil with the help of its root, the *pāda*. Various types of adventitious root—fibrous roots originating in the branches (*śākhā śiphā*), prop roots (*aharoha*)—are recognized. The *Arthaśāstra* indicates knowledge of edible bulbous roots.

c11.s2.t3.9

*Shoot and Stem*

c11.s2.t3.10

The shoot comprises the stem and leaves. The stem is called *kāṇḍa* and the main stem, that is the portion between the root and the place of origin of the branches, *prakāṇḍa*. The Vedic term *skandha* is also retained. In the case of *vanaspati* and *vānaspatya*, stems are strong and erect, whereas in the case of *vallī*, *vratatī* or *latā*, these are weak, necessitating some kind of support such as trees which these may embrace or entwine (*vallī veṣṭayate vṛkṣam*). Plants may be with or without stems. Nodes (*parva* or *granthi*) and internodes, caudex (*sthāṇu*) and branches in the descending order—*śākhā*, *pratiśākhā* and *anuśākhā*—are described. Underground stems which

c11.s2.t3.11

a *ṛtu kṣetrāmbubījānāṁ sāmagryādaṅkuro yathā* ।

c11.s2.t3.12

b *vaṭapippalanimbādīnāṁ prāvṛḍaladharaninādaśiśiravāyu saṁsparśādaṅkurodbhedaḥ* ।

c11.s2.t3.13

c *aṅkuranirvṛtte bījamātṛkāyā rasaḥ saṁplavate prarohāṅgeṣu* । *tenaiva rasena prarohaḥ snihyate vardhate ca yāvanmūlaṁ na svatantravṛttiḥ syāt* । *yadā prarohaḥ svātantrena bhūmyāḥ pārthivarasam gṛhṇāti tadā bījamātṛkā praśoṣamāpadyate* ॥

c11.s2.t3.14

—*SS*, *Śā.*, ii, 33.

c11.s2.t3.15

—*Ṣd. S.*, p. 157.

c11.s2.t3.16

act like roots but are not true roots are recognized and termed *kanda* (*yanmūlameva vījaṃ sa kandaḥ*).

c11.s2.t3.17

Differentiation of plants into trees, shrubs and herbs on the basis of their stems being long or short, hard or less strong, or succulent is noticeable. The term *vṛkṣādanī* meaning a guest plant sucking food from the host plant clearly points to a parasite, and the term *vṛkṣārūhā* (living on another tree) is nothing but the description of epiphytes. Mosses (*śaivāla*), green algae (*jalanīlī*) and mushroom (*chatrā*) are recognized as lower plants.

c11.s2.t3.18

*Leaf*

c11.s2.t3.19

*Patra* and *parṇa* used to denote leaf are derived from its falling nature and its green colour. A leaf may be petiolate (*savṛnta*, *patravṛnta*) or sessile (*vṛntahīna*). The leaf blade or lamina is called *pakṣa* and may be, according to Parāśara, of four kinds, e.g. *samapakṣa* (two wings symmetrical), *viṣamapakṣa* (two wings asymmetrical), *samakarṇa* (symmetrically incised) and *viṣamakarṇa* (asymmetrically incised). In the petiolate leaf, the petiole may be attached to the base of the lamina (*prāntagranthika*) or to the axis (stem) (*vṛntabandhana*). The *Vṛkṣāyurveda* reveals knowledge of the phyllotaxis called *patrabandhana*, of which various types are dealt with. Compound leaves are differentiated from the simple and named after the number of leaflets, e.g. *dvipatra*, *tripatra*, *saptapatra*, and so on. The leaves have also been described and named after their shapes, e.g. *aśvaparṇaka* (*Shorea robusta*), resembling the ear of a horse, *muṣikaparṇī* (*Salvinia*), resembling the ear of a mouse, *kīśaparṇī* (*Achyranthes aspera*), resembling the ear of a monkey.a

c11.s2.t3.20

We now know that there are two principal types of venation, e.g. parallel in which the veins run more or less parallel to one another, and reticulate when the veinlets are irregularly arranged. Parāśara observes that veins carry nutrients to the leaves and are visible like so many lines. The venation is of two types, namely *praguṇa* and *vellita*; in the former the veins are arranged in parallel and in the latter obliquely in the form of a network. Leaves characterized by *praguṇa* venation are called *mauñjapatra* and those by the *vellita* are termed *jālikapatra*.b

c11.s2.t3.21

*Flower*

c11.s2.t3.22

Parts of a typical flower are named as *prasavabandhana*, *puṣpavṛnta* (pedicel), *sthālaka* (thalamus), *jālaka* (sepals), *dala*, *puṣpadala* (petals). No suitable name for androecium is available, but its component parts, e.g. stamens (*keśara*), anther (*kiñjalka*) and pollen grains (*parāga*, *keśarareṇu*), are recognized. Likewise, the parts of a gynoecium are named as *vījādhāra* (ovary), *varāṭaka* (style) and *varāṭakaśīrṣa* (stigma).

c11.s2.t3.23

a Majumdar (G. P.) (1), pp. 23–24.

c11.s2.t3.24

b *patrasirā tu patre rekhāṅkitena dṛṣṭavatī rasavahā ca* | *patre sirānāṃ sanniveśaṃ dvividhaṃ bhavati* | *praguṇaṃ vellitañca* | *tatra praguṇamṛukrameṇa yatsaṃsthānaṃ* | . . . *praguṇena mauñjapatraṃ vellitena tu jālikapatraṃ saṃjñāyate* |

c11.s2.t3.25

In the chapter entitled *puṣpāṅgasūtrīyādhyāya* of the *Vṛkṣāyurveda*, the peculiarities in the arrangement of floral leaves, particularly the gynoecium in the thalamus, have been used as criteria for classifying flowers into four types, e.g. *tundapuṣpamaṇḍala*, *kumbhapuṣpamaṇḍala*, *tuṅgapuṣpamaṇḍala* and *vātyapuṣpamaṇḍala*. The first is a typical flower and is hypogynous (*puṣpakrānta-vījādhāra*); that is stamens, petals and sepals are inserted below the gynoecium. In the second type, sepals, petals and stamens are inserted above the gynoecium, that is flowers belonging to this type are epigynous (*puṣpaśīrṣa-vījādhāra*). In the *tuṅgapuṣpamaṇḍala*, the thalamus assumes the form of a cup and supports the gynoecium in the middle and the stamens, petals and sepals along the rim, giving rise to perigynous (*sthalakotsaṅga*) flowers. In the fourth type, the stamens are fused to form a tube or an elongated mortar (*ulukhala*) covering up the ovary. Flowers of this class described by Parāśara as *vātyamaṇḍalagaṇa* are typical of the Malvaceae family.

c11.s2.t3.26

*Fruit*

c11.s2.t3.27

Different kinds of fruits such as green (*śalātu*), fleshy (*kṣīraka*), dry (*vāna*) and legume (*śamī*, *śimba*) are recognized. Parāśara has a special chapter on fruits (*phalāṅgasūtrīyādhyāya*), in which functions and classification of fruits are discussed.

c11.s2.t3.28

Histology

c11.s2.t3.29

Development of preliminary ideas as to the internal structure of plants has been noticed in the Vedic literature, particularly in the *Upaniṣads*. The *Vṛkṣāyurveda* records considerable advancement in this field by presenting a detailed internal structure of the leaf. This was thought necessary to explain the function of the leaf about which Parāśara had a few interesting observations to make. A leaf contains a large number of invisible (*aṇavaśva*) cells (*rasakoṣa*), each covered by a cell-wall (*kalāveṣṭitena*) of fine membrane (*sūkṣmapatrakā*). These cells store the sap containing the five elemental properties (*pāñcabhautikaguṇa samanvitasya rasasyāśayaḥ*) as also a colorific principle (*rañjakayukta*). The plant body possesses several transporting systems (*sarvasrotāṃsi*). This system in the stem, which distributes *rasa* from the earth to the various plant organs, is called *syandanī*, and the one working in the leaves is called *sirājālānī*. The transporting system has both upward and downward channels (*sirābhiścopasarpayanti apasarpayanti ca bhāvābhāvau*).

c11.s2.t3.30

Physiology

c11.s2.t3.31

That plants possess several characteristics of life such as growth, movement, sleep, waking, disease, transmission of characters, etc., was noticed by the various philosophical schools in India. Udayana of the *Vaiśeṣika* school observes, in his *Kiraṇāvalī*, that plants constantly manifest the phenomena of living, death, dream, waking, susceptibility to diseases, drugging, movement towards what is favourable and repulsion from what is unfavourable as if these are living bodies.a The Buddhist logician Dharmottara records, in his *Nyāyavinduṭīkā*, the phenomenon of sleep in certain plants, in the form of contraction of their leaves during night. Guṇaratna, in his *Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya*, enumerates different characteristics of life. The plants pass through three stages of infancy, youth and age; they have growth; their various kinds of movement are conditioned by sleep, waking, response to touch or need for support. Plants are able to deal with wounds and laceration sustained by their organs and make use of drugs to overcome wounds as well as diseases. Assimilation of the food from the soil is determined by requirements of plants for growth, decay, fighting for diseases, and so on.b A list of plants showing the phenomena of sleep and waking is mentioned, and *lajjāvatī latā* (*Mimosa pudica*) is specifically cited as an instance of a plant sensitive to touch. The different philosophical schools in India had thus unanimously recognized plants as living organisms. That such a view must have crystallized during the period of the *Saṃhitās* and *Upaniṣads* is borne out by frequent comparison of plants with animals as, for example, the likening of the plant to the human body to which we have already referred.

c11.s2.t3.32

*Nourishment*

c11.s2.t3.33

As to the physiology of nourishment, scattered references amply indicate the knowledge that plants receive their food materials from the soil in the form of solution through the agency of the root. The use of the term *pādapa* for the root, as already pointed out, is significant. In the *Mahābhārata*, plants are stated to drink water with the help of air just as water is sucked to the mouth through the lotus petiole.c Majumdar has argued that the analogy, though imperfect, indicates that ‘the knowledge of the existence of the sucking force in the leaves of trees corresponding to the existence of a sucking force in the mouth of man—a knowledge which is only a very recent discovery—was an accomplished possession with the ancients’.d Parāśara’s transporting systems, e.g. *syandanī* in the stem and *sirājālāni* in the leaves, are clearly stated to be engaged in the important work of transporting and circulating sap. The phenomenon of the circulation of sap also appears in Kaṇāda’s *Vaiśeṣika Sūtra*: *utsrotasastamaḥ*

c11.s2.t3.34

a *vṛkṣādayaḥ pratiniyatabhoktradhiṣṭhitāḥ jīvanamaraṇasvapnajāgaraṇarogabheṣaja-prayogasa jātīyānuvidhyānukūlopagamapratikūlāpagamādibhyaḥ | prasiddhaśarīravat |* —*Pṛthivīnirūpaṇam*

c11.s2.t3.35

b Seal, pp. 173-74.

c11.s2.t3.36

c *vaktreṇotpalanālena yathordhvaṃ jalamādadet |* *tathā pavanasaṃyuktaḥ pādaiḥ pivati pādapaḥ ||* —*Śāntiparva*, 177.16.

c11.s2.t3.37

d Majumdar (G. P.) (1), p. 32.

c11.s2.t3.38

*prāyā antasparśā viśeṣiṇaḥ*.a Moreover, Parāśara's elaborate histology of the leaf and recognition of the presence in it of colouring matters (*rañjaka*) are not without significance, as these together with the use of such expression as *rañjakena pacyamānāt* (digested with the help of colouring matters), according to Sircar, point to the knowledge of food manufacture in the leaves.

c11.s2.t3.39

Plant Pathology

c11.s2.t3.40

Plant diseases and their treatment received careful attention. According to Varāhamihira, plant diseases are caused by cold climate (low temperature), wind (dryness) and sun (heat) and indicated by the yellowness of the leaves, non- or under-development of buds, dryness of the branches and the exudation of the sap. The same view is held by Kāśyapa. Guṇaratna observes that plants are afflicted by diseases, displacement or dislocation of flower, fruit, leaves and bark in the same way as the human body suffers from jaundice, dropsy, emaciation, stunted growth of finger, nose, etc., and respond to treatment like human bodies. Varāhamihira's prophylactic treatment includes the application to the root of mud kneaded with ghee and *viḍaṅga* and thereafter of milk diluted with water. The *Agnipurāṇa* prescribes a mixture of *viḍaṅga* with rice, fish and flesh. For the cure of barrenness, the *Bṛhatsaṁhitā* and the *Agnipurāṇa* prescribe a hot decoction prepared of *kulattha* (*Dolichos biflorus*), *māṣa* (*Phaseolus mungo*), *mudga* (Ph. *radiatus*), *tila* (*Sesamum indicum*) and *yava* (barley), which is to be applied to the root.

c11.s2.t3.41

Reproduction, Sex and Heredity

c11.s2.t3.42

Reproduction of plants by fruits and seeds, roots, cuttings, graftings, plant apices and leaves was well known.b Buddha Ghoṣa, in his *Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī*, a commentary on the *Dīgha Nikāya*, describes some of these methods under such terms as *mūla-bīja* (root-seed), *khaṇḍabīja* (cutting), *phaluvīja* (joints), *agravīja* (budding) and *bīja-bīja* (seed). Propagation by seeds (*bīja-bīja* or *vījarūha*) is referred to in the *Atharvaveda* and by Manu. The *Arthaśāstra* mentions cases of plant propagation by bulbous roots (*kāṇḍavīja*). The method of cuttings (also called *skandhavīja*) is described in the *Arthaśāstra*, *Bṛhatsaṁhitā* and *Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī* in the case of sugar-cane, jack-fruit, blackberry, pomegranate, vine, lemon tree, *aśvattha* (*Ficus religiosa*), *nyagrodha* (*Ficus bengalensis*), *udumbara* (*F. glomerata*) and several others. The method of grafting which consists in inserting the cutting of one tree into the stem of another is considered by Varāhamihira as superior to cutting. Plants like betel, *samīraṇa*, *ajjuka* (*Ocimum basilicum*) and *hiriverum* (*Andropogon cynanthus*) are propagated by the *agravīja* method.

c11.s2.t3.43

a *VS.*, 5.2.7.

c11.s2.t3.44

b Majumdar (G. P.) (1), pp. 62–65.

c11.s2.t3.45

Some vague ideas regarding sexuality in plants are noticeable in the *Hārīta-* and *Caraka-saṃhitās*. Questions are raised as to why there are no flowers and fruits produced except sexually or why the same kind of fruition is not perceived in women as in plants. One answer, put in the mouth of Ātreya, is that the seed is the result of co-operation of different sexes among the creeping and the fixed plants, and its quality varies according to the sperm.a The fixed plants are endowed with the male (*śiva*) and the female (*śakti*) principles. Caraka recognizes male categories of plants bearing white flowers, large fruits and tender leaves and the female categories characterized by yellow flowers, small fruits, short stalk, etc. Of special importance is the case of *ketakī* (*Pandanus odoratissimus*) mentioned in the *Rājanighaṇṭu* and the *Dhanvantari Nighaṇṭu*. Always referred to as a couple (*ketakidvaya*), the male plant is called the *sītaketakī* and the female one the *svarṇaketakī*. The former is sometimes called simply *ketaka* in the male gender or *biphalā*, that is unproductive of fruits, and the latter *kanakaprasavā*, that is the plant which produces a golden harvest.

c11.s2.t3.46

From the time of the *Brāhmaṇas*, the question of transmission of characters has been posed. Caraka and Suśruta go as far as to state that the fertilized ovum contains in miniature all the organs of the plant, e.g. the bamboo seed containing in miniature the entire structure of the bamboo tree, and further that the male sperm cells have minute elements derived from each of its organs and tissues. Such ideas closely resemble Darwin’s ‘gemmules’ and Spencer’s ‘ids’.

c11.s2.t3.47

Taxonomy

c11.s2.t3.48

Systematization of any branch of knowledge through proper nomenclature and classification appears to be a speciality of the ancient Indians. This is clearly noticeable in botany which provides a natural scope to the systematizer.

c11.s2.t3.49

Nomenclature

c11.s2.t3.50

Plants have been named in consideration of (1) special association, (2) special property such as medicinal, domestically useful, etc., (3) morphological characteristics, e.g. shape of leaf, number of leaflets in a compound leaf, shape and colour of flowers, etc., (4) local association, (5) environmental association and (6) other peculiarities. An attempt to express either the salient external features or some prominent qualities, medicinal or otherwise, is clearly reflected in the system. Thus *bodhidruma* (*Ficus religiosa*), *aśoka* (*Saraca indica*) and *śivaśekhara* (Datura) are examples of special association; *dadrughna* (*Cassia fistula*), *arśoghna* (*Amorphophallus campanulatus*), *kuṣṭhanāśinī* (*somaraji*), *dantadhāvana* (*Acacia catechu*), *kārpāsa* (cotton) and *lekhana* (reed) utilize medicinal and domestic properties; *kīśaparṇī* (*Achyranthes* sp.), *aśvaparṇaka* (*Shorea robusta*), *pañcāṅgula* (*Ricinus*), *tripatra*, *saptaparṇa*, *vakrapuṣpa* (*Sesbania grandiflora*) and *śatamūlī* (asparagus) depend upon morphological peculiarities of leaf, flower, root, etc.; *saubīra* (*Zizyphus jujuba*), *māgadhī* (jasmine), *vaidehī* (pepper), *jalaja*, *paṅkerūha* (lotus) and *maruvaka* (*Ocimum* sp.) are examples of naming on the basis of local or environmental associations. Consideration of so many factors has often led to the coining of multiple names for the same plant, e.g. *vakrapuṣpa* (plant having curved flowers) and *vraṇārī* (enemy of boils) for the plant *Sesbania grandiflora*; *kaṇṭaphala* (having spiny fruits), *ghaṇṭāpuṣpa* (possessing bell-shaped flowers) and *mahāmohī* (great intoxicator) for the plant *Datura alba*.a The system impressed William Jones so much that he remarked that Linnaeus would have probably adopted the Hindu method had he known the Sanskrit language.

c11.s2.t3.51

a *viruddhānāñca vallīnaṃ sthāvarāṇāñca putraka* | *tatra dhātusamaṃ vījaṃ sahayogena varttate* || —*HS. Śā.*, 1, 12–14.

c11.s2.t3.52

Classification

c11.s2.t3.53

Plants were classified in accordance with three distinct principles, e.g. botanical (*udbhida*), medicinal (*virecanādi*) and dietetic (*annapānādi*). Compared to the broad Vedic classification of plants into *vṛkṣa*, *oṣadhi* and *vīrūdh*, attempts of this period are much more elaborate and scientific.

c11.s2.t3.54

Manu divided plants under eight classes as follows:b

c11.s2.t3.55

(1) *Oṣadhi*—bearing abundant flowers and fruits, but withering away after fructification, e.g. rice, wheat.
(2) *Vanaspati*—bearing fruits without evident flowers.
(3) *Vṛkṣa*—bearing both flowers and fruits.
(4) *Guccha*—bushy herbs, e.g. *Jasminum* (*mallikā*).
(5) *Gulma*—succulent shrubs.
(6) *Tṛṇa*—grasses.
(7) *Pratana*—creepers which spread their stems on the ground.
(8) *Vallī*—climbers and entwiners.

c11.s2.t3.56

Suśruta and Caraka more or less adhered to the broad-based classification of the Vedic period and recognized some of the classes given by Manu as forming subclasses. According to them, plants are of four classes:c

c11.s2.t3.57

(1) *Vanaspati*—which bears fruits but not flowers.
(2) *Vṛkṣa* or *vānaspatya*—which bears both fruits and flowers.
(3) *Vīrūdh*—which creeps on the ground or entwines.
(4) *Oṣadhi*—annual herbs which wither away after fructification.

c11.s2.t3.58

Suśruta's commentator Ḍalhaṇa gives *plakṣa* (*Ficus infectoria*) and *udambara* (*Ficus glomerata*) as examples of *vanaspati* and the mango and the *jambu* (*Eugenia jambolana*) as examples of fruit- and flower-bearing *vṛkṣas*; subdivides *vīrūdhs* into two groups, *pratānavatya* (creepers with spreading stems on the ground) and *gulminya* (succulent herbs); and cites wheat and barley as examples of *oṣadhi* which wither away after fructification. Caraka's commentator Cakrapāṇi subdivides *vīrūdhs* into *latā* (creeper), *gulma* and *oṣadhis* into annuals or perennials bearing fruits and grasses which go without fruits.

c11.s2.t3.59

a Majumdar (G. P.) (1), pp. 71–78.

c11.s2.t3.60

b *MS.*, I, 46.47.48.

c11.s2.t3.61

c *tāsāṃ sthāvarāścaturvidhāḥ | vanaspatayo vṛkṣā vīrūdh oṣadhaya iti | tāsu apuṣpāḥ phalavanto vanaspatayaḥ puṣpaphalavanto vṛkṣāḥ | pratānavatyaḥ stambinyaśca vīrūdhāḥ, phalapākaniṣṭhā oṣadhaya iti ||* —*SS.* *Sū.*, 1.23

c11.s2.t3.62

The Vaiśeṣikas classify plants under seven heads, e.g. *vṛkṣa*, *tṛṇa*, *oṣadhi*, *gulma*, *latā*, *avatāna* and *vanaspati*.a Defining the characteristics of the various groups, Udayana, in his *Kiraṇāvali*, remarks that *vṛkṣas* are plants endowed with trunks and branches bearing flowers and fruits (*vṛkṣāḥ puṣpaphalavantaḥ skandhaśākhinaḥ*); *tṛṇas* are exemplified by *ulapa* and like plants (*tṛṇānyulapādīni*); *oṣadhis* are plants like *kalama*, which perish after their fruits ripen (*oṣadhyaḥ phalapākāntāḥ kalamādayaḥ*); *gulmas* are plants like *bhāṭā* (*gulmā bhāṭāḥ*); *latās* are represented by *kuṣmāṇḍa*, a species of *Cucurbita* (*latāḥ kuṣmāṇḍiprabhṛtayaḥ*); *avatānas* are plants like *ketakī* (*avatānāḥ ketakyādayaḥ*); and *vanaspatis* are trees that produce fruits without flowers (*vanaspatayo vinā puṣpam phalinaḥ*).

c11.s2.t3.63

Parāśara, in his *Vṛkṣāyurveda*, has developed a more elaborate classification based largely on morphological consideration such as floral characters, their resemblances and differences. In his system, plants are classified into families (*gaṇa vibhāga*), of which some examples are given below:

c11.s2.t3.64

*Samīgaṇīya* (*Leguminosea*)—This family is represented by *samīvṛkṣa*, a plant bearing *simbiphala*, i.e. a legume or pod, and leaves held on a common stalk, which are compound in nature, with leaflets arranged like a feather. Flowers of plants of this family are hypogynous (*puṣpakrāntabījādhāra*) and five-petalled, with gamosepalous calyx and an androecium of 10 stamens. Three subtypes are: *vakra-puṣpa*, *vikarṇika-puṣpa* and *śuka-puṣpa*.

c11.s2.t3.65

*Puplīkagaṇīya* (*Rutaceae*)—The plants bear spines, odoriferous leaves and winged petioles and hypogynous flowers (*tundamaṇḍala*) with free petals and stamens. Fruits formed of superior ovary (*puṣpakrāntaphala*) contain hairy succulent flesh and multiple seeds. *Keśāraka* and *māluraphala* are its two subtypes.

c11.s2.t3.66

*Svastikāgaṇīya* (*Cruciferae*)—The name is derived from the shape of the calyx which looks like a *svastikā*. The flower has four sepals, four petals and six stamens, all free, and a superior ovary (*tundamaṇḍala*). In the inflorescence flowers are arranged in rows. The two carpels are fused to form a bi-locular fruit (*dvipuṭa*) of which the wall is sutured to give it the appearance of a leguminous fruit.

c11.s2.t3.67

*Tripuṣpagaṇīya* (*Cucurbitaceae*)—Plants of this class bear epigynous (*kumbhamaṇḍala*) flowers which are sometimes unisexual. The flower has five sepals, five petals which are united, three stamens and a style with three-pointed stigma (*triśīrṣavarāṭa*). The ovary is tri-locular (*trivartaka*) and produces several seeds.

c11.s2.t3.68

a *sthāvarāḥ vṛkṣatṛṇauṣadhigulmalatāvatānavanaspataya iti* ||

c11.s2.t3.69

*Mallikāgaṇīya* (Apocynaceae)—Plants of this class give an inflorescence of a mixed type and bear hermaphrodite (*samāṅgā*) flowers having united calyx and corolla, each five-membered, and five stamens, epipetalous (*avyaktakeśara*). The fruit is a follicle of two chambers and seeds are endowed with tufts of long fine hairs (*tulapucchesamanvitā*).

c11.s2.t3.70

*Kurcapuṣpagaṇīya* (Compositeae)—In this case, the flowers are sessile and borne on a common axis surrounded by a common calyx so as to make the assemblage look like bristles on a brush head (*kurcākāra*), whence the name. The ovary is inferior (*puṣpaśīrṣakabījādhāra*).

c11.s2.t3.71

Ecology

c11.s2.t3.72

The period under review shows some awareness of the dependence of structural and functional peculiarities of plants upon environmental conditions. Caraka and Suśruta divide land into different regions according to the nature of soil, climate and vegetation. There are several references to plants typical of these regions, which clearly indicate their interest in plant ecology. The regions and their characteristic vegetation may be summarized as follows:

c11.s2.t3.73

*Jāṅgala* region is characterized by open spaces, dry wilderness or deserts, and scarcity of rivers and rivulets, in fact, of water resources in general. Some of the typical plants of this region, as mentioned by Caraka, include *khadira* (*Acacia catechu*), *śallakī* (*Boswellia serrata*), *sāla* (*Shorea robusta*), *aśvattha* (*Ficus religiosa*), *vaṭa* (*F. bengalensis*), *āmalakī* (*Phyllanthus emblica*) and *śiṃśapā* (*Dalbergia sissoo*).a

c11.s2.t3.74

*Anūpa* region means a marshy or swampy tract, abounding in a large number of pools, traversed by a net of rivers and overgrown with forests. The vegetation of *anūpa* region, according to Varāhamihira, includes *jambu* (*Eugenia jambolana*), *vetasa* (*Calamus rotung*), *kadamba* (*Anthocephalus cadamba*), *drākṣā* (vines), *arjuna* (*Terminalia arjuna*) and several others. According to Caraka, dense forests of *hintāla* (*Phoenix paludosa*), *tāla* (*Borassus flabellifer*), *tamāla* (*Cinnamomum tamala*) and *nārikela* (*Cocos nucifera*) typify such swampy regions.

c11.s2.t3.75

*Sādhāraṇa*, meaning ordinary, is an intermediate region which has some features common to both the *jāṅgala* and the *anūpa*. Such regions are good for the growth of both *vanaspatis* and *vānaspatyas*.

c11.s2.t3.76

Kauṭilya differentiated between the *jāṅgala* and the *anūpa* regions by the amount of rainfall. For the *jāṅgala*, this amount is 16 *droṇas*, whereas for the *anūpa* it is half as much more.b

c11.s2.t3.77

a Majumdar (G. P.) (1), p. 67.

c11.s2.t3.78

b *AŚ.*, II, 24.

c11.s2.t3.79

Arbori-Horticulture

c11.s2.t3.80

The science of arbori-horticulture developed during this period as a distinct discipline. Much of the *Vṛkṣāyurveda* deal with the construction and maintenance of gardens and parks for health, recreation and enjoyment of the public. The existence of the science in a rudimentary form can be traced to the Ṛgvedic times. All decent houses and places of noblemen and kings had pleasure and kitchen gardens attached to them.

c11.s2.t3.81

Public gardens and parks were placed under the charge of superintendents who were required to know the causes of growth and development of flowers and fruits, the methods of planting and curing trees by the administration of proper soil and water at the suitable time and the various uses of plants as medicinal drugs. The knowledge of grafting was one of the qualifications of the gardener, and it came to be regarded as one of the 64 *kalās* or arts. According to Vātsyāyana, all big houses and palaces of kings had a pleasure garden, *vṛkṣavāṭikā* or *puṣpavāṭikā*.a Methods of plant propagation by seed, cutting, layering, grafting and budding were prevalent and one finds mention of them in the *Vedas*, *Arthaśāstra* and *Bṛhatsaṁhitā*. Jacolliot remarked, ‘We should not forget that India, that immense and luminous centre in olden times, was in constant communication with all the people of Asia and that all the philosophers and sages of antiquity went there to study the science of life.’b

First 132 of 235 passages. Read on

Cites (29)