Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, first edition - Volume I, A-B.pdf/780

 643 B O T The ninth and laft argument is intitled Omnium florum genuina conjideratio; which is nothing more than a colleftipn of vague obfervations upon the ftrudture and (Economy of particular plants, lome of them true, others falfe, but all of them evidently thruft in as fupports to a favourite hypothefis. Having thus given a pretty full hiftorical view of the controverfy concerning the fexes of plants, we (hall now lay before our readers a few obfervations that have occurred from the perufal ofit. It may be obferved in general, that the fadts and arguments adduced by the fexualilts are by far too few to admit of any general indudtion. Nay, moft of them are merely accidental, many of them not being uniform even in the fame fpecies; and the final caufes of the whole are unnatural, and tortured fo as bed: to anfwer the pur poles of a theory, which, for all that hath yet been (aid, merits no higher appellation than that of a whimfical conjecture. Fird, then, Linnaeus’s reafoning is of a mixt nature, partly analogical, partly founded* on obfervation. He iets out with an attempt to prove, that plants are endowed with a certain degree of animal life; and his fundamental reafnn is, becaufe, agreeable to Dr Harvey’s definition of life, they fpmiancoujly propel humours.— Strange, that a man of Linnaeus’s capacity, or indeed of any capacity at all. (hould ferioufly employ an argument pregnant with every degree of abfurdity !—Stranger dill that he (hould take up near twenty pages in illudrating and drawing conclufions from fuch an argument!—If Harvey has given a vague and unintelligible definition of life, can that be a fufficient excufe for laying hold of fuch a definition in order to fortify an undable hypothefis ? But, were'Harvey’s definition more accurate than it is, and were vegetables adtually poflelfed of living powers, it is eafy to conceive how the life of vegetables might be a proper ted of, or contradiction to, the received definition : But, how a definition, which, from the com plex and intricate nature of the fubjeCt defined, mud neceflarily be vague and precarious can be employed in confirmation of any general theory, exceeds the powers of common apprehenfion. But let us examine this notable definition a little further: What idea of.life does a fpontaneous propulfion of humours convey ? If Harvey means to fay, that men and other animals regulate the motion of their blood, and the fecretions of their different humours, by certain exertions of the fentient principle, fuch a meaning is contradicted by univer(al experience ; fo far is this from being the cafe, that the mod abdraCt attention cannot render us confcious of thefe motions; Again, if he means, that every body is endowed with life, whofe organs are fuited to propel humours, then the term fpontaneous is abfurd, becaufe it afcribes intellectual powers to the organs themfelves, than which nothing can be more ridiculous. Befides, allowing the organs to enjoy an independent faculty of propulfion, what does this propuKLn mean when applied to vegetables ? Surely nothing more than a power of conveying certain liquors from the root to the fuperior parts of the plant. A wet

ANY. cloth, with one end in contaCt with the water in any vefiel, and the other hanging over its fide, will do the fame; fo will a fpunge, fo will a bed of loofe fund, fo will a fugar loaf, ‘&c. ; but it is to be hoped, that mankind have more fenfe than to believe that a bit of cloth; or a fugar loaf, are animated beings. As confcious of the lamenefs and futility of his reafoning on this fubjeCt, Linnaeus endeavours further to corroborate the life of vegetables by analogies drawn from their nutrition, age, motions, difeafes, death, anatomy, and organization In thefe nothing new or remarkable occurs, excepting the uncommon method of reafoning, and the (till more whimfical purpofes to which this reaforring is applied. We (hall take notice oi his arguments under the articles of motion and death, which indeed are the chief of thofe which do not depend more or lefs upon the above definition. Under the former of thefe, Linnseus informs us, that plants, when confined within doors, always bend towatds the light; and that many flowers, particularly thofe of the fyngenefia clafs, purfu'e the courfe of the fun from ea(t to weft. This inclination of flowers towards the light, Linnseus would have us to believe are real inllances of the living powers and fpontaneous motion of plants. —This phenomenon, however, may be eafily accounted for, independent of any idea of life. Every body knows, that a certain degree of heat relaxes the tone of the vegetable organs, and at the fame time proportionally evaporates the fluids which thele organs contain. Now, to whatever fide of the plant that heat is principally applied, there of neceflity mult alfo be the greateft flaccidity of the fibres, and the greateft evaporation of the fluids; of courfe, from the law of gravitation, the flower, indeed the whole plant, muft incline towards that fide from whence the light or heat proceeds. The (lighted obfervation is fufficient to convince us of the propriety of this method of accounting for the inclination of heavy flowers fupported by weak ftems, towards the rays of the fun. If a pot of flowers be put loofely into a glafs, and allowed to remain a little time in an apartment where a fire is burning, as foon as the fibres.begin to be enervated, they all, unlefs obftrufted by fome other caufe, bend towards the fire. Hence the abfurdity of aferibing this phenomenon to a fentient and living principle, which is more eafily and with more certainty explained by the common laws of mechanifm. Let us next attend to Linnaeus’s argument under the article of death. After telling us, with much folemr.ity, that death is only a privation of life, arid that vegetables die of many grievous diftempers, he thus concludes; “ With what propriety,” fays he, “ could vegetables be thus faid to die. unlefs it be allowed that they previoufly//werfr”’ However, if the life of vegetables hath no other fupport than this trifling quibble, (for it merits not the name of argument), we are afraid that every man of common fenfe will conclude, that they never were endowed with life, and confequently cannot, with any more propriety than an ordinary figure of fpeech can beftow, be faid to die. Having in this manner attributed living powers to vegetables, Linnseus, in the next place, makes an effort(howto