weighing five pounds was set in this pot, which was protected
by a cover from dust, and daily watered with rain-water. In
five years' time the willow had grown to be large and strong,
and had increased in weight by a hundred and sixty-four pounds,
though the earth in the pot, when once more dried, only showed
a loss of two ounces. Van Helmont concluded from this
experiment that the considerable increase of weight in the plant
had been gained entirely at the cost of the water, and consequently that all the materials in the plant, though distinct from
water, nevertheless come from it.
These objections to Aristotelian teaching on the part of Jung and Van Helmont remained isolated and unproductive. But an incentive to new investigations in vegetable physiology was supplied from a different quarter, and its influence lasted till far into the 18th century. This was the suggestion, that not only does a nutrient sap taken up by the roots ascend to the leaves and fruits of plants, but that there is also a movement of the same sap in the opposite direction in the rind. But this idea assumed from the first two different forms. Some botanists, evidently resting on the analogy of the circulation of the blood in animals, supposed that there was also an actual circulation of the sap in plants ; others on the contrary were content with supposing that while the watery sap absorbed by the roots rises in the wood, an elaborated sap capable of ministering to growth moves in the rind, the laticiferous vessels, and the resin-ducts. The two views were at a later time repeatedly confounded together, and those who refuted the first believed that they had refuted the other also. It appears that a physician from Breslau, Johann Daniel Major[1], Pro-
- ↑ J. D. Major, who was born at Breslan in 1639, ar >d died at Stockholm in 1693, is quoted by Christian Wolff, as well as by Reichel ('De vasis plantarum.' 1758, p. 4) and others, as the founder of the theory of circulation, which he propounded in 1665 in his 'Dissertatio Botanica de planta monstrosa Gottorpiensi,' etc. Kurt Sprengel ('Geschichte der Botanik, ii. p. 7) classes him also among the defenders of the doctrine of palingenesia, a
