| XXX | (652) | XXX |
2 B O T where flopping to take another bait, it luckily depofites fome of this adhering pollen directly upon the ftigitia of the female!—Here it is proper to obferve, that generation is One of the capital, and indeed one of the mOft important laws of nature that we are acquainted with. The laws of nature are all fixed', Heady, and uniform in their operation. None bf the effetts produced by them are fubjeft to thofe uncertainties which always refult from chance or any fortuitous train of circumftances. But is there any thing in nature more unfettled, defultory, arid capricious, than the direction and motions of the wind ? Can we form a conception of any. thing more cafual and fortuitous than the wild and wayward paths of infefts ? The very fuppofiuon, therefore, that nature has left the generation of at lead a tenth part of the whole vegetable tribes to thefe accidental caufes, muff be unphilofophical, whimfical, and abfurd. We will be the more readily convinced of the abfurdity of this dodirine, when it is confidered that many of the monoecious and dioicous plants are of the mm oft importance to the human race, and the confequent impropriety that the fru&ification of thefe Ihould be fubjedt to the fport of the winds. After all, it requires the utmoft ftretch of ftincy to conceive the pbflibilit.y of a regular impregnation by means of the wind, even when the male and female are within-,590 yards of each othef, which is a much more' favourable fujpppfition than two, three, or according to forrie authors, a dozen of miles. Conceive then a male and female hemp, or any other dioicous plant, growing 500 yards afunder. Let the male and female flowers, which, by the by, is not always the cafe, blow at the fame time. Well, the antherse are fully ripe; the pollen is difcharged; and the ftigma, as our author exprefles it, gaping nv'uh: for its reception. Now, even this favourable fupgofition is fubjed: to fo many accidents, and pregnant with fuch a troop of improbabilities, that it is abfolutely impqflible, upon any principles bf belief hitherto invented, to be fully perfuaded that the pollen, in luch circum fiances, can be thus conveyed on the wings of the wind, diredly to the ftigma, a point in moft plants juft not invifible.—-To accQmplifh a regular impregnation in this way, whenever the abtherae are ripe, the wind muft blow in a direct line from the male to the female; if the blaft be too fti ong, it will overfhoot the mark ; if too weak, it will fall fhorf of it; if any vegetable or other body higher than the plants themfelves intervene, the progrefs of the pollen will be inte; cepted ;—if it rains, the pollen will be beat to the ground ;—the leaft tremor of the air, or fmalier blaft refledted from any other quarter, will infallibly alter the direftion of this fluduating pollen.Nay, fuppofing Linnaeus, or any other expert botanift, Ihould take his ftation by the male plant, having his pockets loaded with pollen; fuppofe him further to take every advantage of v/ind and weather, and aiming a; the female, let him, for hours together, throw at her repeated handfuls of this frudifying pollen, it is a thoufand to one, if, at the diftance of 500 yards, a Jingle g ain of pollen would touch any part of the female, and many millions to one againft its falling diredly upon the ftigmata of her refpedive flowers. In a word, this theory '
A N Yof impregnation by the wind, is a palpable refuge of ignorance, invented wi(th a view to account for the frudification of dioicous plants, whicfy Linnaeus knew to be a formidable barrier Handing in oppofmon to the fexual hypothefis. How far that obftacle is removed by this vague fubferfuge, is fubmitted to the judgment of every candid inquirer. Upon the,whole, we have endeavoured to fliovy, that every fad or experiment Linnreus has employed to fupport his theory of the procreation of vegetables by means of fexual embraces, is .either falfe, or accidental ; and that the conclufions drawn from them are unnatural, and often ftrained to fuch a pitch of extravagance as renders them truly ridiculous. The only argument that now remains to be examined, is drawn from the analogy betwixt animals and vegetables. That many beautiful analogies may be traced betwixt the animal and vegetable, is an undeniable truth. But, in reafoning upon a phyfical fubjed, which admits of a clear determination by experiment, to truft foleiy or chiefly to analogical dedudions, is an evident mark either of a bad reafoner or an unftable hypothefis. The very nature of analogy prefuppofeth fome radical difference in the fubjeds between which the refemblance fubfifts. If the analogy be fupported by fads and experiments, they mutually (Lengthen the evidence . But, if the analogy be not fupported by fads and experiments, or, if the experiments contradid the analogy, which is the cafe with the theory under confideration; in either of thefe iqftances the analogy is Carried beyond its proper limits, and affords no argument in favour of the hypothefis. Without the concurrence of fads, how can we be certain but that the very property we contend for conftitutes the effential difference betwixt the two fubjeds ? Without fads, how can we be certain but that generation by the intercourfe of fexes is the identical charaderiftic by whi :h an animal and vegetable are diftinguifhed ? Thefe principles are applicable even in the cafe of a perfed and uniform analogy, but acquire ah accumulated force when the analogy is partial and incomplete, which, is evidently the cafe with regard to the fexual commerce of vegetables. For example, to compleat the analogy in dioicous plants, a male fhould be uniformly found growing by the fide of the female ; and befides, at the age of puberty, or as foon as the anthers come to maturity, the male flower, fliould be fituated in fuch a manner, that the pollen could not poflibly mifs the ftigmata of the female flowers, from' whatever quarter the wind might blow: the fam: thing (hould take place with regard to the motioicous flowers. But this is not the. analogy prefented to us by nature. On the contrary, the males and females feldom grow in the neighbourhood of each other. Nothing is more common than to meet with large beds of males growing in one place, and large beds of females at the diftance of fome miles from them, pointing out, as it were, that no neceflary connedion, no mutual affedion, no natural dependence fubfifted between thefe males and females; but rather that nature intended, for fome purpofe or other, that they fhould be kept at a diftance. Further, the fexualifts, in fupport of their theory, are
