Matthias de l'Obel
Flemish physician and botanist (1538-1616)

Mathias de l'Obel, Mathias de Lobel or Matthaeus Lobelius (1538 – 3 March 1616) was a Flemish physician and botanist who was born in Lille, Flanders, in what is now Hauts-de-France, France, and died at Highgate, London, England. He studied at the University of Montpellier and practiced medicine in the Low Countries and England, including positions as personal physicians to two monarchs. A member of the sixteenth-century Flemish School of Botany, he wrote a series of major treatises on plants in both Latin and Dutch. He was the first botanist to appreciate the distinction between monocotyledons and dicotyledons. The plant genus Lobelia is named after him, as is Lobel's maple Acer lobelii.
Life
Mathias de l'Obel was born in Lille (Flemish Rijsel) in the County of Flanders, Spanish Netherlands, now French Flanders in 1538, the son of Jean De l'Obel, a lawyer whose practice specialized in aristocrats in the army. Relatively little is known about his life. By the age of sixteen he had already developed an interest in both botany and medicine. He spent some time traveling and studying in Italy in 1551 and 1563–1564 before studying medicine in Leuven and at Montpellier in France. He sought out Montpellier due to the reputation of Guillaume Rondelet, as had his earlier contemporary, Carolus Clusius.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Matthias de l'Obel” is flemish physician and botanist (1538-1616). The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Matthias, l'Obel and Flemish, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “flemish physician and botanist (1538-1616)” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1860320. VIAF identifies the subject as 62480800. The Library of Congress control number is n81093156. 3 of 3 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1538, 1616, 1551 and 1563.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Matthias de l'Obel”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Matthias de l'Obel primary sources, Matthias de l'Obel archive and Matthias research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Matthias de l'Obel”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Matthias de l'Obel” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.