lishment of the sexual theory. As is usually the case in great
revolutions in science, some simply denied the new theory,
many adopted it without understanding the question, others
formed a perverse and distorted conception of it under the
influence of reigning prejudices, while others again sought to
appropriate to themselves the merit of the real discoverer;
there were but few who with a right understanding of the
question advanced it by new investigations.
The botanists who endeavoured to aid in determining the matter by their own observations may be distinguished into those, to whom the important point was the enquiry whether the pollen is absolutely necessary to the formation of seed, such as Bradley, Logan, Miller, and Gleditsch, and those who like Geoffrey and Morland assumed that sexuality was no longer an open question, and who were bent on observing in what way the pollen effects fertilisation in the ovule. But there was another class of writers altogether, who, believing that they could deal with the subject without making observations and experiments of their own, either like Leibnitz, Burckhard, and Vaillant, simply accepted the results of the observations of others on general grounds, or like Linnaeus and his disciples, endeavoured to draw fresh proofs from philosophical principles, or like Tournefort and Pontedera, simply rejected the idea of sexuality in plants. Lastly, we might mention Patrick Blair who did nothing himself, but merely appropriated the general results of Camerarius' observations, and has had his reward in being quoted even by German writers as one of the founders of the sexual theory[1].
We have now to see what was really brought to light by further experiment and observation. Bradley appears to have been the first who experimented on hermaphrodite flowers with a view to establish the sexuality of plants ('New improve-
- ↑ See Patrick Blair's 'Botanic Essays,' in two parts (1720), pp. 242-276. Even the Latin ode is borrowed without acknowledgment.
