Flora (2): Basic Classification of Plants

The enumeration of external morphology unveils the existant scientific knowledge of the author's era and also indicates that morphology preceded taxonomy. These morphological patterns are drawn for plants by Amarasiṃha. The following sub-titles are given to plants based on their appearance.

(a) Classification of plants:

Amarakośa classifies plants as Vānaspatya, Vanaspati and Oṣadhi. Vānaspatyas are those plants that produce fruits from flowers. Vanaspati^[1] is that which produces fruits without flowering. Perhaps in the Vanaspatis the flowers are not apparent but the fruits. Oṣadhis are those which dry up after fruition. All these do not carry any explanation by Kṣīrasvāmin The other kind of classification into trees, shrubs, creepers followed in Amarakośa with explanations by Kṣīrasvāmin, are as below:

(b) Vṛkṣa (II. 4. 5; pp. 80-1)–

[Tree:]

Amarakośa gives 13 words to denote a tree. The etymologies of Kṣīrasvāmin reveal that some of the synonyms are morphological definitions of a tree while some are physiological as listed below.

Morphology–śākhī—That which has branches, āgamaḥ na gacchatyagamaḥ–That which does not move about.

Physiology–pādapaḥ āṅdhripaḥ pādairmūlaiḥ pibati pādapaḥ evamaṅdhripaḥ That which drinks through the roots. This reveals that the ancients had the knowledge that the roots absorbed water and supplied it to various parts of the plant, otherwise known as the ascent of sap.

Taxonomy–vṛścyate chidyate vṛkṣaḥ vṛkṣati vṛṇoti vā | That which breaks or covers; taru, anokahā, druma are popular names hence catagorized under taxonomy. Kṣīrasvāmin also adds kuja and agaccha to denote a tree–kujo'gaccho'pi |

(c) Aprakāṇḍa (II. 4. 9; p. 81)–

[Shrub:]

Kṣīrasvāmin explains a shrub as, that which is devoid of large trunks, with multitude of leaves and branches, possessing a stunted growth or stambha–

prakāṇḍo gaṇḍastadrahite udbhidviśeṣaḥ stambastṛṇasaṃghāto vā tiṣṭhatīti sthaḥ |

(d) Vallī (II. 49; p. 81)–

[Creeper:]

Kṣīrasvāmin describes vallī as that which twines and cites guḍūcī and mādhavī creepers as examples–

valate veṣṭate vallī guḍūcyādirmādhavyādiśca |

Kṣīrasvāmin adds a note that the word latā which is used for a creeper also sometimes denotes the branch of a tree and quotes Śāśvata (475) in this regard–

vṛkṣaśākhāpi latā, yacchāśvata:–latā vratatirākhyātā latā śākhā caśākhinām |

(e) Vīrud (II. 4. 9; p. 81)–

[Spreading creeper:]

Kṣīrasvāmin observes that a wide spreading creeper is denoted as Vīrud and quotes Kātya who also opines the same–

latānām pratāno'styasyāḥ pratāninī vā latā virut |
yatkātyaḥ–
vīrutsvaparṇajaṭilā pratānaśatagāminī |

Aprakāṇḍa, vallī and vīrud are defined based only on their morphology.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This is redundant as modern Science shows that all plants flower and the flowers of such trees are invisible.