Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, first edition - Volume I, A-B.pdf/779

 B O T hemp, tranfplanted them at a great diftance from any males of the fame genus, and befides had them inclofed by double rows of hedges. The refult was, that each bf thefe plants produced great quantities of fertile feeds. Tournefort made the fame trial upon the lupulus, Miller upon the bryony, and GeofFroy upon the mays ; and all of them declare that the feeds of thefe plants were as fertile as if they had been furrounded by athoufand males. Linnaeus, in his firft argument for the coitus of plants, refers every man to the evidences of his fenfes. “ Do we not fee, (fays he) the ftigma of almoft every hermaphrodite flower covered over with the pollen or impregnating fubftance ? Do not we fee the parietaria, the urtica, by violent explofions, difeharging their pollen in the open air, that it may be carried in that vehicle to the ftigmata of their refpefHve females —All this is admitted by the oppofers of the fexes ; bet then they deny that thefe explofions, lire, are intended to create any intercourfe between the male and the female ; and further alledge, that this ejection of the pollen is intended by nature to throw off fomething excrementitious, or at lead fomething, which, if retained, would prove noxius to the fructification. Linnaeus takes his fecond argument from the proportion which the /lamina bear to the ftylus, alledging that they are generally of the fame height.—This obfervation is not only contrary to experience, bur, allowing it to be univerfal, no conclufion can be drawn from it either for or again/l the fexual hyppthefis. The third argument is taken from the /ecus or fituation of the /lamina with refpedt to the ftylus ; “ and as the male flowers in the monoecia clafs /land always above the female flowers, it mu/l be concluded (fays Linnaeus) that the intention of nature, in this difpofition of the parts, is to allow a free and eafy accefs of the pollen to the /ligma.”—But the/lamina cannot be faid tofurround the pi/lillum in the monandria and diandria claffes : And •the pofition of the male flowers in the monoecia clafs is a mere chimera; for in the ricinus, one of the examples which Linnaeus mentions in confirmation of his doClrine, the female flowers Hand uniformly fome inches above the males. That the /lamina and pi/lilla generally come to perfection at the fame time, and that this happens even in the dioicous plants, is Linnaeus’s fourth argument. But, as it is acknowledged by Linnaeus hirnfelf, that there are many exceptions with refpeCl to this fad, the oppofers of the fexual hypothefis alledge that it carries the bt/l anfwer in its own bofom. The fifth argument is founded on the circum/lance of fbme flowers /hutting up their petals in rainy or moi/l evenings.—But many flowers do not /hut themfelves up, eithgr in the night or moifl weather, as the pa/fion-flower, ire. The lychnis noctiflora, mirabilis peruvianar, ire. open their flowers in the night, and /hut them at the approach of the fun. Hence this is another final caufe evidently perverted to fupport a favourite hypothefis. We come now to the culture of the palm-tree, which is the fixth and mo/l plaufible argument employed by the fexuali/ls. Herodotus, Theophra/lus, Pliny, and fome others, have informed us, that the female palm-tree, unlefs

ANY. 647 a male grows fu/fieiently near it, or unlefs the pollen be artificially conveyed to the female fpatha, will produce nothing but four dates and unfertile feeds. This fad is partly denied by Pere-Labat and Tournefort. The former of thefe authors exprefsly affirms, that a female palmtree, in the garden belonging to the mona/lery at Martinico, produced mo/l excellent fruit, although there was not a male within fix miles of it : From which he concludes, that the prefence of the male is not neceffary to render this tree fruitful, whatever may be pretended by ancient or modern naturali/ls. Herodotus relates, th«' the people of Babylon, when the male was at too great a di/lance from the female, made a rope pafs from the boughs of the one to the boughs of the other, to afford an opportunity to the culices and other infecls to pafs along the rope, and convey fome kind of impregnating influence from the male to the female. Tournefort, wiien he was in that country, inquired at the mo/l intelligent people of the place, as to the truth of this relation ; but received for anfwer, That they had never heard of any fuch matter. Even the favourers of the fexual hypothefis give very different accounts of the method of cultivating palm-trees in thofe countries. Veflingius, who refided many years in Egypt, denies that any artificial method is employed for frudlifying the palm-trees in that country. Thus Yeflingius exprefsly contradidls Herodotus and many others. In a word, aimo/l every different author gives a different account of this /lory. Amid/l fo many contradidlions concerning the culture of palm-trees, the oppofers of the fexes conclude, that the whole /lory is a vular error, taken for granted by fome learned men, fpurioufly fathered upon others, and fwallowed down without examination by their credulous readers.—As we have not feen any anfwer to Mylefius’s letter on this fubjecl, our obfervations upon it /hall be reffrved till this bi/lorical view of the controverfy be finiffied. The feventh argument of Linnaeus is taken from the flores nutantes.—The piftils of thefe flowers, according to Linnasus, are always logger than the /lamina,, and nature has affigned them this penfile po/lure, that the pollen, which is fpeci/ically heavier, than air, may the more conveniently fall upon the /ligma.—But the pi/tils of the campanula, lilium, and many other flares nutantes, are not longer than the /lamina. Befides, granting this were uniformly the cafe; yet, as the polkn is heavier than air, this po/lure mu/l of neceflity either make the pollen mifs the pi!tillum altogether, or, at any rate, it can only fall upon the back part of the piflil in place of the /ligma ; and, of courfe, fuch a direction would rather tend to fru/Irate than promote the impregnation of the feed. The eighth argument is taken from the planta fubmerfle, which are laid to emerge as foomas their flowers begin to blow, le/l the pollen ffiould be coagulated or wa/hed off by the water.—But many fubmarine and aquatic plants fructify, entirely below water;. and, fuppo/ing they did not, the fame argument would equally prove it to be the intention of nature, that the pollen ffiould be blown away by the winds, as that it fhould be fubfervient to.the impregnation, of the feed.. The.