According to the Aristotelian tradition every living being has at least one sense – touch. That’s why touch is the basic sense in the relation to the existence of animals (or man). Taste has a similar status, because it is a kind of touch (Aristotle, De anima, II, 3 414b; III, 12 434b). But when it comes to the ability to acquire knowledge, sight is the most appreciated sense (Aristotle, Methaphysics, I, 1 980a) (Lindberg, D. C., Steneck, N. H.: The Sense of Vision and the Origin of Modern Science. In: Debus, A. G. (ed.): Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance. London: Heinemann,1972).

This paper will show, that we can find the different appreciation of senses also in the 16th century botanical treatises and that using senses in plant description is dependent on the aim for which the particular description is made.

First of all, there is the practical, medicinal purpose for studying, recognizing and describing plans. Renaissance opinions about plant composition and their healing powers are mostly based on the ancient four element theory: each plant is compound of water, air, earth and fire in particular proportion. The healing properties of each plant can be derived from this composition. The best way to recognize this composition is by taste, because during tasting the tongue touches directly (without any medium) the object (Aristotle, De anima, II,10 422a; III,13 434b). So that is why tastes were important part of plant descriptions.

But during the 16th century a new approach to plants emerged. They started to be studied independently of medicine as a part of newly constituted discipline. The aim of this discipline was precise description, which would allow to exactly determinate the particular plant, not just to determinate it´s healing powers. In this case tastes were usually understood as accidental signs and there is was more emphasis given on the visual side of the description - the shapes, forms and the number, which in following periods also allowed to classify plants and made the first systems of plant kingdom.

Specific features of the 16th century plant descriptions will be shown on the example of some editions of Mattioli´s herbal – one of the most popular renaissance botanical-medical treatises. And on the other hand on some rather methodological works, where medicine is completely omitted, like the treatise of Adam Zaluziansky ze Zaluzian Methodi herbariae libri tres (Prague, 1592).