CHAPTER III.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE MOVEMENTS OF PLANTS (PHYTODYNAMICS).

It will scarcely be doubted at the present day, that the mechanical laws of growth, of geotropic and heliotropic curvatures, of the various kinds of periodic movements, of the twining of tendrils and climbing plants, and of movements dependent on irritation, may be referred to a common principle, and that in all these movements besides the elasticity of the cell-walls the still unknown qualities of the protoplasm play the most important part, and that consequently the ‘streamings’ of the protoplasm, the movements of swarmspores and similar occurrences must be ranked with these phytodynamical phenomena. From this point of view phytodynamics would appear to be one of the most important foundations of vegetable physiology. The recognition of this fact is however of very recent date, and to imagine that such a conception of the movements of plants was present to the minds of the early physiologists would be to attribute to the past ideas to which it was entirely a stranger. These movements were scarcely noticed even as curiosities in former ages, and it was not till the end of the 17th century that some attention began to be paid to them; and very slow progress was made at a later time in disentangling the relations which come under consideration and which are some of them very complicated, in determining the dependence of the phenomena on external influences, and explaining to some extent their mechanical conditions.

Single movements of parts of plants are noticed in a cursory manner by some early writers. Varro was the first who mentioned the heliotropic movements of the stalks of many flowers, which he says were for that reason called heliotropic flowers; in the following century Pliny says that the leaves of clover close when bad weather is approaching; Albertus Magnus in the 13th century, Valerius Cordus and Garcias del Huerto in the 16th, thought the daily periodical movements of the pinnate leaves of some Leguminosae worth recording; Cesalpino noticed the movements of tendrils and climbing plants, and was surprised to see that the latter to some extent seek for their supports. These were every-day phenomena, but the striking sensitiveness of the leaves of Mimosa pudica introduced from America could not fail to attract attention, and so we find an essay on the causes of it in Robert Hooke’s ‘Micrographia’ of 1667. The irritability of the stamens of Centaurea had been already mentioned by Borelli in 1653.

1. We meet with the first speculations on the subject at the end of the 17th century. Ray in his ‘Historia Plantarum’ (1693) commences his general considerations on the nature of the plant with a succinct account of phytodynamical phenomena, and introduces the whole by a sentence of Jung: ‘Planta est corpus vivens non sentiens,’ etc. Though Ray, like Cesalpino, seems to believe in the Aristotelian soul of plants, yet he does on the whole endeavour to explain the movements which he describes by physical and mechanical laws; he thinks that the irritability of Mimosa in particular is not due to sensation, but to known physical causes; the movement of the leaf when it is touched is caused by a contraction, which again is due to a withering or relaxation of its parts. He endeavours to apply the knowledge of his time to the explanation of the mechanical process: leaves, he says, remain tense only because the loss by evaporation is kept constantly supplied by the water that flows to them from the stem; if then in consequence of a touch the sap-passages of the leaves are pressed together, the supply of water is not sufficient to prevent their becoming relaxed. Ray mixes up together the movements from irritability and the daily periodical movements, as was done till recent times; the latter, he says, occur not only in the leaves of Leguminosae, but in almost all similar pinnate leaves, and with these periodical movements of leaves he places also the periodical opening and closing of the flowers of Calendula, Cichorium, Convolvulus, and others. That these last movements are due to changes of temperature appeared to him to be proved by an experiment of Jacob Cornutus on flowers of Anemone, which, when cut off and placed in a well-closed box in a warm place, opened at an unusual time if the flower stalk only was dipped in warm water. This fact, afterwards forgotten and discovered again a few years ago, of the dependence of the movements of flowers on changes of temperature, was applied by Ray to explain the periodical movements of leaves, which, to use his own expression, fold themselves together as the cold of night draws on, and open again with the day, and as he thought that these movements are of the same kind as the movements of irritability in Mimoseae, he tries to explain how cooling has the same effect as a touch. It was natural in the existing state of science to assume that changes of temperature were the first causes of various movements, for a thrust was at that time almost the only recognised cause of motion. Hence Ray explained the movements of growing stems which are now called heliotropic by a difference of temperature on the opposite sides. A certain Dr. Sharroc had observed the stem of a plant on which he was experimenting grow towards that part of a window, where the air found free entrance through an opening; from this circumstance, and from the rapid elongation of the stems of plants growing under cover, which he ascribed to the higher temperature, Ray concluded that cold air hinders the growth of the side of a stem on which it falls, and that this side must become concave. Thus Ray used the etiolation of plants grown under cover to explain their heliotropic curvatures, as De Candolle did one hundred and forty years later, only with this difference, that he described the rapidity with which forced plants shoot up to the higher temperature, De Candolle to want of light. On the other hand Ray knew perfectly well that the green colour of leaves is not produced by the access of air but by the light, for, as he says, plants become green under glass, and not under an opaque cover; and if they become less green under glass than in the open air, this is because the glass absorbs certain rays of light and reflects others. Ray however, like almost all later observers till quite recent times, did not keep the elongation and bleaching of etiolated plants sufficiently distinct; his account of this phenomenon is spoilt by the presence of much that is obscure.

It has been justly observed by other writers on botanical subjects that no notice is usually taken of one of the most remarkable of the phenomena of which we are here speaking, because, being a matter of every-day occurrence, it is simply accepted as something obviously in accordance with the nature of things; this is the fact, that the main stems of plants grow vertically upwards and their main roots downwards. To the French academician Dodart, whom we have already encountered in the history of the theory of nutrition, is due the great merit of being the first to find this apparently simple phenomenon really very remarkable; he convinced himself by experiments on germinating plants, that these vertical positions are caused by curvatures, and endeavoured to discover the physical reason why the main roots if placed in an abnormal position escape from it by curving in the downward direction, and the main stems in the upward direction, till they both reach the vertical line. It was a matter of minor importance that his mechanical explanation, which supposed that the fibres of the roots contract on the moister side and those of the stem on the same side lengthen, was quite unsatisfactory; it was much more important that these remarkable phenomena were made the subject of scientific enquiry, and we find that various observers soon after directed their attention to them, and exercised their acuteness in attempts at explaining them; to these attempts we shall return in a future page.

A still more universal phenomenon than the vertical growth of stems and roots is the growth of plants generally, and it required as much or even more of the spirit of enquiry to propose the question, whether this growth can be explained by mechanical laws, and what that explanation is. Mariotte touched on this question in 1679, but only incidentally, and supposed that the stretching of the pith, which meant at that time the whole of the parenchymatous tissue, was the cause of the growth of the parts of plants. This idea might have had its origin in the Aristotelian notion that the pith is the seat of the vegetable soul, but Mariotte endeavoured to give physical reasons for it. Hales in his ‘Statical Essays’ of 1727 went much more minutely into the question of the growth of plants. Following the train of thought in his doctrine of the nutrition of plants, he introduces his observations on their growth with the remark, that plants consist of sulphur, volatile salts, earth, water, and air, the first four of which attract one another, and therefore form the solid, inert part of the substance of plants; the air behaves in a similar manner as long as it is kept by the other substances in a solid condition; but as soon as it is set at liberty it is capable of expansion. On this power of expansion in the air, by which the juices of plants are quickened and strengthened, he builds his mechanical theory of growth, according to which the plastic parts of the plant assume a state of tension, and as the air enters into combination with other substances and so becomes fixed, warmth and movement are excited, and these make the particles of sap assume by degrees a form and shape. These principles supplied his starting-point. To get a clearer idea of the way in which the growth of the parts of plants proceeds, he made equi-distant punctures in young stalks and leaves, and found that the intervals between them increased by growth more in the younger intervening parts than in the older. In the course of these observations he is particularly struck by the great longitudinal extension which accompanies growth, because, as he says, the vessels still continue hollow, as a glass tube when drawn out to its utmost extent retains its canal. He finds Borelli’s idea confirmed, that the young shoot grows by the extension in length of the moisture in the spongy pith; and he endeavours to explain the fact that the growing shoot does not extend equally in the transverse direction, and so become spherically rounded off like an apple, from the nature of the structure of the cell-tissue. That the air enclosed in the tissue and the sap with it presses into the shoot with sufficient force to produce so great an extension, he thinks is proved by his experiments, which show him the great force with which the water rises in the bleeding vine, and forces itself into swelling peas; it is known, he says, that water acts with great force when it is heated in a vessel, for water can be driven into the air by heat; the sap in plants is composed of water, air, and other active ingredients, and makes its way with great force into the tubes and cells, when it is heated by the sun.

2. The course of the 18th century gradually increased the number of the phytodynamical phenomena, to which physiologists paid more or less attention, and repeated attempts were made to explain them on mechanical principles. These attempts were for the most part unsatisfactory, because movements distinct in kind from one another were mixed up together, their dependence on external influences was not distinctly perceived, and the knowledge of the anatomical structure of the parts which exhibited the movements was, owing to the decline of phytotomy, extremely imperfect. Moisture and warmth played the chief part in these explanations, but their mode of operation was expressed in the most general terms; the mechanical processes in plants were described much in the way in which a person with very indefinite ideas as to the nature of steam and the construction of the inside of a steam-engine might speak of its movements. The majority of writers, in accordance with the tendencies of the age, professed their desire to refer the phenomena of life in plants not to an unknown principle called the soul, but to mechanical and physical causes; but they did not apply their minds to the examination of these phenomena with that strenuous effort, which in this subject especially could alone lead to a complete and satisfactory explanation of them.

Linnaeus studied the periodical movements of flowers in 1751 and those of leaves in 1755, but a mechanical explanation of them was not to be expected from him; he contented himself with pointing out the external conditions of these phenomena in many species, with classifying them, and giving the periodical movements a new name by calling the positions assumed by night the sleep of plants; nor did he use the word at all in a metaphorical sense, for he saw in this sleep of plants a phenomenon entirely analogous to sleep in animals. That the sleep-movements were not capricious but due to external influences was with him a necessary consequence from the nature and idea of the plant, which was that of a living and growing being, only without sensation. But it should be mentioned that he stated correctly that the movements connected with the sleep of plants are not caused by changes of temperature, or not by these only, but by change of light, since they take place in the uniform temperature of a conservatory.

Linnaeus’ account of these kinds of movement was only formal, it is true, but still it was well-arranged and clear; the treatment of the same and other movements by his contemporary Bonnet was quite the reverse. It is scarcely possible to imagine anything more shapeless, such an utter confusion of things entirely different from one another, as is to be found in Bonnet’s experiments and reflections on the various movements of leaves and stems in his work on the function of leaves, published in 1754; geotropic and heliotropic curvatures, nutations and periodic movements, are all run one into another; a person who understands something of the subject may find here and there single things in his experiments that may be turned to account, but he was himself unable to make any use of them. He set out with a preconception which prevented him from the first from understanding what his experiments showed him; it was his object to prove from a multitude of instances, that stalks and leaves so curve, twist and turn in all cases, that the under sides of the leaves are directed towards the ground, in order that they may be able to suck up the dew, which according to his theory is the chief nutriment of plants and rises from the ground. It is no great merit in him, that amid all this confusion a correct observation here and there forced itself upon him, as for instance that organs, chiefly such as are young and ductile, if they are put out of their natural position, endeavour to recover it by bending and twisting. On the other hand his conclusions with regard to the mechanical causes of these movements are utterly inane; the least skill in judging of the results of his experiments must have led him to very different ideas; warmth and moisture, he says, appear to be the natural causes of movement, but warmth is more effective than moisture, and the warmth of the sun more effective than that of the air. This explanation is unsuitable to just those cases which he chiefly studied, the geotropic and heliotropic curvatures. In one point only he arrived ultimately at a right judgment, namely that the great lengthening of the stem, the small size attained by the leaves and the want of colour in plants grown under cover, are caused by partial or entire absence of light; Ray however had shown this before as regards the colour.

Though Du Hamel, like many later writers, treated Bonnet’s investigations, uncritical as they were and without plan, with great respect, he gave himself a much better account of the various movements of plants. In the sixth chapter of the fourth book of his ‘Physique des arbres,’ 1758, he discussed all the phenomena of the kind that were known to him under the title: ‘On the direction of stem and roots, and on the nutation of the parts of plants.’ Under the head of upright or oblique direction of the stem and roots, he speaks of geotropic, heliotropic, and some other curvatures; then follows a chapter on etiolation, and under the title, ‘Movements of plants, which approximate to some extent to the voluntary movements of animals,’ he enquires into the periodical and sensitive movements of the leaves of Mimosa; he winds up with a short account of Linnaeus’ flower-clock, and of the hygroscopic movements of the valves of fruits. The movements of tendrils and climbing stems, of which Du Hamel seems to have known little, are not mentioned in this connection; but they are noticed in a former chapter with hairs, thorns and similar things,—a plan which Cesalpino also adopted. If this way of dealing with the different movements of plants is to be taken as a classification of them, it was a very unsatisfactory one; for it separates like things, and brings together things unlike; still it is an improvement on Bonnet’s arrangement, while the author gives us also some new and valuable observations. He may claim to be the first who made heliotropic curvature depend on light, and it is a significant fact that he got this conclusion from Bonnet’s experiments. After examining, like Hales, into the distribution of growth in shoots, and discovering that this ceases with the commencement of lignification, he proposed to himself the question: at what spots does the lengthening of the roots take place, and he found from suitable experiments that every root-fibre grows only at its terminal portion, which is a few lines in length, and that no other part of it increases in length. In the chapter on the direction of the parts of plants he examines the explanations which had been given of heliotropic curvatures. Astruc and de la Hire had supposed the weight of the descending sap to be the cause of the downward curvature of the roots, and the lighter vapours which ascend in the tissue to be the cause of the upward curvature of the stem; Bazin on the contrary attributed the geotropism of the roots to the moisture in the earth. Du Hamel undertook to determine whether the moisture, the low temperature, or the absence of light in the earth made the roots curve downwards, and he was obliged by the result of his experiments to deny that they do. But he was unfortunate in his own explanation of the movements which we should now call geotropic, heliotropic and periodic, for he came to the conclusion that the ‘direction of the vapours’ inside the vessels of the plant and round about the plant has more to do with producing these movements than any other causes, and that if warmth and light appear to influence them, it is perhaps only because they produce vapours or communicate a definite movement to them. As regards the movements of the leaves of Mimosa, Du Hamel repeated the experiment made by Mairan in 1729, in which the periodic movement continued even in constant darkness; he found that this was so, and concluded that the periodic movements of Mimosa do not essentially depend on temperature and changes of light; Hill had determined in 1757 that the alternation of day and night was the cause of the movements connected with the sleep of plants, because he found that darkness artificially produced in the day-time made the plants assume the nocturnal position; but Zinn in 1759 came to the same conclusion as Mairan and Du Hamel. It was not till long after that the question was to some extent cleared up by Dutrochet. Du Hamel thought it necessary to give a formal refutation of the opinion expressed by Tournefort, that the movements of plants are produced by muscles, and to show that Tournefort’s vegetable muscles are hygroscopic fibres.

We have to mention in conclusion, that Du Hamel was the first who observed that the two branches of a vine-tendril twine in opposite directions round a support that happens to be between them; he also appears to have been the first who compared the irritability of the stamens of Opuntia and Berberis with that of Mimosa-leaves; the stamens of Berberis were afterwards examined by Covolo in 1764, by Koelreuter 1788, by Smith in 1790, and by others, but without leading to any discoveries respecting the nature of the irritability. Dal Covolo’s famous essay on the stamens of the Cynareae (1764) produced no absolutely final result, but it contained some particulars which threw light on the mechanical laws of these movements of irritability. Koelreuter, who studied these objects in 1766, thought less of discovering a mechanical explanation of them, than of finding arguments in the irritability of the stamens for the necessity of insects to pollination. An entirely new kind of movement was discovered by Corti in 1772 in the cells of Chara, which is now known as the circulation of the protoplasm; this form of movement in plants appeared at first to bear no resemblance whatever to the phytodynamic processes then known, and it was not brought into connection with them till a long time after; on the contrary an erroneous idea soon began to prevail, that it was a real rotation of the sap, as understood by the early physiologists; this idea held its ground till far into the 19th century, and being combined with mistaken notions respecting the movements of latex, was developed by Schultz-Schultzenstein into the doctrine of the circulation of the vital sap. For a time indeed Corti’s discovery was forgotten, and had to be reproduced by Treviranus in 1811. A somewhat similar fortune attended the discovery of the movement of the Oscillatorieae by Adanson in 1767, which misled Vaucher into pronouncing them to be animals.

3. Imperfect as were the theoretical efforts of the 18th century in this branch of botanical study, yet they aimed at tracing the various movements back to the play of physical forces. But in the closing years of the century another order of ideas, injurious to the healthy progress of science, made its appearance in this, as in other parts of botany and zoology. Even the majority of those who had no sympathy with the nature-philosophy and its phraseology, believed that there was in organised bodies something of a special and peculiar nature; because the attempts made to explain the phenomena of life by mechanical laws were on the whole unsatisfactory, all such explanations were looked upon as impossible and even absurd, while it was forgotten that the vital force, which was to explain everything, was a mere word for everything that could not be explained in the life of organisms. This vital force was personified, and seemed to assume a really tangible form in the movements of plants. But the moment that a phenomenon was handed over to this force, all further investigation was abandoned; the idea with regard to phytodynamical phenomena especially was that of the peasant, who could only explain the movement of the locomotive by supposing that there was a horse shut up in it. Moreover the knowledge of the inner structure of plants was at its lowest point at the end of the 18th century; the spiral threads which could be unwound were the only structural element whose form was to some extent understood, and their hygroscopic movements were supposed to be due to a combination of the pulsations of the vital force with the spiral tendency of the plant. At the same time whole bundles of vessels were taken for spiral fibres, or were supposed to consist of them, and these were thought to be vegetable muscles, which contract under the influence of various kinds of irritation, and so cause the movements in the organs of plants; but it was forgotten that in the organs which exhibit the most striking movements, such as sensitive leaves and leaves that suffer periodical changes of position, these ‘muscles’ occupy a central position which unfits them for the function ascribed to them. It would be unprofitable and wearisome to give many examples of what is here stated, though many might easily be collected; it will suffice to quote some sentences only from Link’s ‘Grundlehren der Anatomie und Physiologie’ of 1807; they are particularly instructive, because Link declared against the nature-philosophy and professed to be on the side of inductive science. Under the head of movements of plants, he discussed geotropic curvatures and other movements in the superficial manner of the time and only to come to the conclusion, that the direction of growth of stems and roots is caused by a polarity of a definite kind in every plant, from which we may argue, he says, ‘to higher connections of our planet in the world of space.’ He says again, ‘that it is natural to conjecture that light is the cause of the sleep of plants,’ and then gives the contradictory statements of Hill, Zinn, and De Candolle, all jumbled together into an inextricable tangle in a fashion which sets all maxims of reasonable discussion at defiance. He then puts aside all attempts at mechanical explanation with the remark, that plants observe their regular times of sleep even when kept in the dark and at a low temperature, for this evident habituation is one of the most important marks of vitality. He is led to similar results by Desfontaine’s observation, that a Mimosa, exposed to the shaking of a wheeled vehicle, closes at first but then opens again. Speaking of the rapid oscillations of the leaves of Hedysarum gyrans and similar movements, he rejects Percival’s idea of a will in plants, but says that the attempts to derive them from mechanical or chemical causes has only led to solemn trifling.

It is plain that men who could print such remarks as these and still worse than these, could not possibly effect anything in the province of botany which we are considering. The broad and shallow stream of such opinions as these flowed on till later even than 1830, but it ran dry at last when its supplies were cut off by the effect of new discoveries, and scientific investigation again gained the upper hand. Some calmer thinkers, who could not rest content with empty words, had meanwhile been pursuing the path trodden by Ray, Dodart, Hales, and Du Hamel, and by experiment and earnest reflection had brought new facts to light, which were at least calculated to pave the way for the mechanical explanation of phytodynamical phenomena. Senebier in his ‘Physiologic végétale’ (1700) had described some minute researches which he had made into the subject of etiolation; and though he made the great mistake of attributing the want of colour in the leaves and the excessive elongation of the stems to the decomposition of carbon dioxide which does not take place in the dark, yet he gave an example of genuine scientific investigation and again expressed its true spirit, when he said that the Linnaean phrase, ‘the sleep of plants,’ was unsuitable, because the sleeping leaves are not relaxed, but continue as stiff as in the day-time. De Candolle also, like Senebier, experimented in 1806 on the influence of light on vegetation, and succeeded in proving that the daily period of leaves may be reversed by artificial illumination; he was, as we have said above, an adherent of the theory of a vital force, but only made use of it when physical explanations failed him. The same year, (1806) is the date of a brilliant discovery, which was extremely inconvenient to the thorough-going adherents of the nature-philosophy and the vital force, and did much to bring the scientific study of the movements of plants back to the right path. ANDREW KNIGHT[137] showed by experiment that the vertical growth of stems and primary roots is due to gravitation; he attached germinating plants to a rapidly revolving wheel, and thus exposed them to the centrifugal force, either alone or combined with gravitation; the radicles, which normally follow gravitation, here took the direction of the centrifugal force, while the stems assumed the opposite direction. The next question was, why gravitation makes the roots and stems take exactly opposite directions, why, that is, in a plant placed in a horizontal direction, the root-end curves downwards and the stem upwards. Knight supposed that the root, being of a semi-fluid consistence, is bent downwards by its own weight, while the nutrient sap in the stem moves to the underside and causes stronger growth there, until by means of the curvature so produced the stem assumes the upright position. Here too, as in Dodart’s case, it was no great misfortune that the explanation proved afterwards to be insufficient; it served at the time to explain as much as was then known of the matter. The spirit of true scientific research displayed in Knight’s explanation of geotropism was expressed in many other contributions which he made to vegetable physiology; two only must be mentioned here. He showed in 1811 that under suitable conditions roots are diverted from the vertical direction by moist earth, an observation which was confirmed by Johnson in 1828 and afterwards forgotten. More attention was excited by his discovery in 1812, that the tendrils of Vitis and Ampelopsis are negatively heliotropical, that is, that they turn away from the source of light. A few other cases of this kind of heliotropism have since been discovered, and they are highly interesting, because they teach that there is the same opposition in the relations of plants to light as in their relations to gravitation. Knight possessed some of the direct and bold reasoning power of his countryman Hales; he defied the vital force, and was always ready with a mechanical explanation, if it was at all possible to find one. Thus he explained the twining of tendrils by supposing that the pressure of the support drives the juices to the opposite side, which consequently grows more vigorously and causes the curvature, which makes the tendril wind round the support. This theory was at all events better than the one which von Mohl sought to put in its place in 1827, and no better one was suggested till very recently. Much the same may be said of Knight’s explanation of geotropic curvatures; it is true that Johnson showed in 1828 that the ends of roots as they curve downwards set in motion a heavier weight than themselves, and therefore do not simply sink down, and Pinot in 1829, that they force their way even into quicksilver, and that consequently Knight’s theory, at least as regards the roots, is unsatisfactory; but no better theory has yet been found, and his view also of the progress in the upward curvature of the stem has not given place to any one that can be said to be more generally accepted.

It was the commonly received opinion till after 1820 that the movements of the parts of plants are produced by the spiral vessels, or, which meant the same thing in those days, by the vascular bundles. It was an important event therefore when Dutrochet proved in 1822, that the movements of the leaves of Mimosa were due to the alternate expansion of the antagonistic masses of parenchyma in the pulvinus or cushion of succulent tissue found at the articulation, and that the central vascular bundle follows passively their curvatures. Lindsay had indeed arrived at the same conclusion from similar experiments as early as 1790, but his unprinted essay on the subject was first produced by Burnett and Mayo in 1827. Meanwhile Dutrochet had also found that light influences the movements of the leaves in different ways; alternation of light and darkness excites them to motion, while leaves which have become rigid in continued darkness are restored by light to their normal condition of sensitiveness.

Much attention was bestowed in the period between 1820 and 1830 on various questions connected with the movements of the organs of plants. In 1826 the faculty of medicine in Tübingen offered a prize for an essay on the peculiar nature of tendrils and climbing plants, which was intended to bring into discussion all the points which required to be cleared up before a more thorough understanding of the whole subject could be obtained. The two essays which gained the prize were published in 1827. One was by Palm, the other by von Mohl, both of very different value. Palm’s essay is a good and careful college-exercise; but there is nothing of this character in von Mohl’s. The skill of the composition, the exact knowledge of the literature of the subject, the wealth of personal experience, the searching criticism, the prominence given to all that is fundamental and important, the feeling of certainty and superiority which the book inspires, all unite to make the reader forget that it is not the work of a mature and professed naturalist, but of a student of two-and-twenty years of age. This academical prize-essay on the structure and twining of tendrils and climbing-plants was one of von Mohl’s best works, and altogether the best that appeared on the subject before Darwin wrote upon it in 1865; at the same time it must be said that von Mohl did not explain the exact mechanical processes in the tissues, for he assumed a sensitiveness in both cases which causes the winding round the support, and thought that this sensitiveness must be conceived of ‘dynamically’ and not ‘mechanically.’ Nevertheless von Mohl conducted his investigation up to this point according to strict rules of inductive science, and studied the facts which were capable of being established by observation and experiment with an exactness such as had not yet been applied to any case of movement in plants. It was a genuine production of its author, strictly inductive up to the point at which deduction became necessary. Von Mohl pointed out in it essential differences in the behaviour of tendrils and climbing plants, and the corresponding distinction between the organs which have to be considered in each case, and he made the important discovery that contact with the support acts as a stimulus on the tendril, though he was wrong in supposing that the climbing stem also is similarly affected. He at once assented to Dutrochet’s new view, that it is not the vascular bundles but the layers of parenchyma which produce the movements. He distinctly rejected the notion constantly repeated, though with some hesitation, since the time of Cesalpino, that tendrils and climbing-plants ‘seem to seek for’ their supports, as also the idea which many had adopted without reflection from Grew, that the varying direction of a climbing-stem is due to the varying influence of the course of the sun and moon, and showed that the movements of nutation in the stem are sufficient to explain the apparent seeking for the support; it is true that he did not fully explain the corresponding phenomena in tendrils, but he saw enough to set aside the old ideas. We must not here go further into his many, and for the most part excellent, observations; some of course had afterwards to be corrected, but the important point was, that his full investigation of the subject showed how such phenomena must be studied, if we are to arrive at a strictly mechanical explanation of them.

If von Mohl had attempted to give a mechanical explanation of the processes in the tissue of twining organs he must necessarily have failed from ignorance of the agency of diffusion, which must certainly be taken into consideration. This agency was not discovered by Dutrochet till the year (1826) in which von Mohl undertook his investigation, and some time elapsed before it was sufficiently understood to be successfully applied to the explanation of phenomena in vegetation. Dutrochet did indeed attempt so to apply his theory in 1828, and showed that changes in the turgidity of tissue are produced by endosmose and exosmose, and consequently that a new mechanical method of explanation had been discovered for processes which had been usually referred to a supposed vital principle; but in his later and more detailed researches into geotropism, heliotropism, periodical movements and movements of irritability, which he collected together in his ‘Mémoires’ of 1837, he fell into two different mistakes: he assumed conditions of size and stratification in cells which do not actually exist, for the purpose of explaining very various kinds of curvature by endosmose, and he was not satisfied with endosmose in the parenchyma; he postulated changes in the vascular bundles also, which were supposed to be produced by the influence of the oxygen in a way which he did not explain. Thus there were blots in his explanation of separate processes, and his mechanical theories remained unsatisfactory; but it is worthy of recognition and was most important for the development of phytodynamics, that he was thoroughly in earnest in his purpose of explaining every movement in plants by mechanical laws. Even the opponents of such explanations were obliged to go deeply into mechanical relations in order to refute him, and no one could any longer be imposed upon by the simple assertion that all depends on the vital force; so devoted a partisan of vital force as Treviranus had to deal with endosmose as an established principle. Moreover Dutrochet’s copious investigations presented such an abundance of interesting observations, delicate combinations, and suggestive considerations, that the study of them is still instructive and indeed indispensable to any one who is occupied with such researches. Comparison of his papers in the ‘Mémoires’ of 1837 with what was before known on the mechanical laws of the movements of plants leaves us in no doubt that energetic mental effort had taken the place of the old complacent absence of thought.

Still no single movement had as yet been fully explained on mechanical principles; but by the year 1840 clearer views had been attained on the whole subject; the co-operation of external agencies was in substance recognised, and the different forms of movement were better distinguished, though much still remained to be done in this direction; and as regards the mechanical changes in the tissue of the parts capable of movement, a factor had been given in endosmose which must be taken into account, though it might be necessary to seek a different mode of applying it.

4. Before proceeding to give some account of the theoretical efforts that were made in this subject between 1840 and 1860, it should be mentioned that new cases of movement in plants had been discovered. Dutrochet observed that the stem in the embryo of Viscum is negatively heliotropic, and had carefully studied its behaviour; he opposed the old notion that the geotropic downward curvature is peculiar to main roots, and that that is the reason why they are in ‘polar’ opposition to the stem, by pointing to the shoots of the rhizomes of Sagittaria, Sparganium, Typha, and other plants, which at least when young curve downwards with some force; and on extending Knight’s experiment with a rotating wheel he found that the leaves also exhibit a peculiar geotropism. These observations and some new examples of periodical movement and movements of irritability were connected without difficulty with the forms of movement that had been long known in the vegetable kingdom, and contributed to correct the views that had been entertained respecting them. But this was not the case for a time with two phenomena which also fall within the province of phytodynamics, namely normal growth and the movements of the protoplasm, which exhibit the two opposite extremes, so to speak, of the facts connected with movement. Various measurements had been made of the growth of plants since the beginning of the century, and attempts had been made to establish its dependence on light and heat, but without any great success. Treviranus had rediscovered the movements of the protoplasm in 1811 in Nitella. Similar movements were repeatedly pointed out by Amici, Meyen, and Schleiden in the cells of higher plants, but they were taken for streamings of the cell-sap; it was still unknown that all these were movements of the same organised substance, which moves independently in water in the form of swarmspores. These phenomena, especially the movements of swarmspores, were noticed and studied separately between 1830 and 1840, but no one thought of bringing both these movements and the mechanical laws of normal growth into connection with the phenomena which had usually been treated together under the head of movements in the vegetable kingdom. De Candolle and Meyen did not mention them in this connection in their ‘Compendia’ of 1835 and 1839; Meyen on the contrary discussed the ‘circulation of the cell-juice’ with nutrition, and the movement of swarmspores with the propagation of Algae. The two writers just named, like Du Hamel before them, divided into two main groups the movements in the vegetable kingdom which had been long known and were usually put together, and treated of geotropic and heliotropic curvatures and the movements of tendrils and climbing plants under the head of direction of plants, and the periodical movements and movements connected with irritability under that of movements, though they gave no reasons for this classification; it rested evidently on an indistinct feeling outrunning clear perception—that in the one they were dealing with growing parts of plants, in the other with parts which had ceased to grow. Dutrochet made no such distinction, but he was the only one among the chief representatives of vegetable physiology between 1830 and 1840 who had thoroughly adopted the mechanical view of phytodynamical phenomena. We have said that Treviranus was a warm adherent of the theory of vital force. De Candolle and Meyen, it is true, endeavoured to explain each separate movement if possible by mechanical laws, but in their more general speculations they readily lapsed into antiquated views; thus De Candolle speaks of the sensitiveness of Mimosa as a case of extreme ‘excitability,’ and Roeper, in accordance with his other views, translated De Candolle’s expression, autonomous movements, by the term ‘voluntary’ movements. The movements he is speaking of are those of Hedysarum gyrans, and Meyen also terms them ‘voluntary’ movements, and ranks them with those of Oscillatoria. That he was influenced in this by a dim reminiscence of the old vegetable soul is shown by the heading, ‘Of movements and sensation in plants,’ placed over the section of his work in which the expression occurs; and in the last chapter of this section, he attributes some kind of sensation to plants on account of the evident marks of design in their movements, though he veils his meaning in obscure and tortuous phrases.

5. The mists of the nature-philosophy and the vital force disappeared from the phytodynamical province of botanical science after the year 1840. The methodical research of inductive science, which had still to contend with them up to that time, was once more acknowledged as the supreme guide and ruler. A few stray dissentients were still to be found, but the general voice was against them. There was an eager desire for exact investigation of the facts, in order to lay a firmer foundation for future theory. But no conclusive results, no such entirely new points of view were gained before 1860, as were established during the same time in phytotomy, morphology, and systematic botany. To these subjects the most eminent enquirers applied their best powers almost exclusively, while phytodynamics vanished from the field of view of the generality of botanists, and no one made them the object of the comprehensive, intense, and effectual study, which Dutrochet had previously devoted to them. At the same time his example was not without a powerful effect. The working of endosmose was further investigated and treated as a part of molecular physics. Greater freedom was thus gained in the mechanical treatment of phytodynamical questions, and a firmer basis secured by aid of the advances which were being at the same time made in phytotomy. But with the exception of Brucke’s essay on Mimosa (1848), the works produced during this period were chiefly devoted to the critical examination of the writings of previous observers, and whatever appeared that was new and positive remained incomplete till after the date at which this history ends. Under these circumstances we must be content to indicate briefly the more important of the new discoveries and of the efforts made at this time to advance the theory of the subject.

Several observers occupied themselves soon after 1840 with the influence of light on the growing parts of plants. Payer maintained in 1843 that the radicles of various Phanerogams turn from the light, and a controversy arose between him and Dutrochet on the point, in which Durand took part in 1845, but no definite conclusion was arrived at even as regards the certainty of the fact. The beautiful discovery of Schmitz in 1843, that the Rhizomorphs grow more slowly in the light than in the dark, and arc at the same time negatively heliotropic, might have proved much more important; but the theoretical value of this fact has till quite recently been entirely misconstrued. Sebastian Poggioli had discovered in 1817 that highly refringent rays of light were more heliotropically active, and the fact was confirmed by Payer in 1842; but Dutrochet in 1843 maintained, and incorrectly, that it is the brightness of the light, and not its refrangibility, which is the determining factor. Zantedeschi found in 1843 that red, orange, and yellow light are heliotropically inactive. Gardner on the contrary in 1844, and Guillemain in 1857, came with the help of the spectrum to the conclusion that all its rays are heliotropically active, and the question long remained hampered by these contradictory statements, till it was taken up again in 1864. This was a similar case to that of the question of the effect of variegated light on the elimination of oxygen and the formation of chlorophyll. Daubeny had given attention to the subject in 1836 and inclined to the view, that it was the brightness of the light rather than its refrangibility which was the important point; and Draper’s observation, made with the spectrum in 1844, that the elimination of oxygen reaches its maximum in yellow light and decreases on each side of it, was generally understood as though it was a question only of the brightness of the light. It is only within recent times that this view has been abandoned, and in the same way all the investigations which have just been mentioned were not settled till after 1860, and were scarcely turned to any theoretical account.

The bright point in the history of phytodynamics at this time is Brücke’s treatise in 1848 on the movements of the leaves in Mimosa, not only on account of the very important results which it records, but still more for the exactness of its method which has made it a model of research in these subjects. He first established the essential difference between the periodical nocturnal position of the leaves of Mimosa and the position which they assume when irritated, and showed that the former is connected with an increase in turgidity, the latter with relaxation; he showed further that if the upper half of the organ is removed, the periodical movements and the irritability both continue. Of great importance to the theory was the clear account given of the tension which is produced between the vascular bundle and the turgescent layer of parenchyma, and the reference of the periodic movements and of those of irritation to the movements of water in the antagonistic masses of parenchyma. The details were still imperfect, but one great advantage was secured, namely, the doing away with the mysticism associated with the idea of irritability, from which even von Mohl was not entirely free.

A full enquiry into the downward curvature of roots, published by Wigand in 1854, deserves mention, because it threw some light on the theory of the strictly mechanical questions connected with a subject which had been for some time neglected, and because, while containing other instructive matter, it refuted the theory, founded on endosmose and on the structure of tissue, which had been suggested by Dutrochet and adopted by von Mohl, since it showed that one-celled organs also exhibit geotropic curvatures. The great theoretical importance of the fact that all the various phytodynamical phenomena, with the exception of movements of irritability, are manifested in one-celled organs, was not fully understood till after 1860.

It has been already observed, that no theoretical result was obtained from the discovery of circulation in cells made by Corti in 1772, and repeated by Treviranus in 1811. The same may also be really said of the later observations of Amici, Meyen, and Schleiden, which went to show that such movements occur very generally in vegetable cells. In like manner the movements of swarmspores, of which a considerable number of instances had been observed before 1840, were rather the subject of astonishment than of scientific consideration. They could not in fact find their place in the general system until Nägeli and von Mohl discovered in 1846, that it is in the protoplasm that the so-called movement of the cell-sap takes place, and Alexander Braun made it known in 1848 that the swarmspores are naked masses of protoplasm, and indeed true vegetable cells. A new substratum for the movements in plants, and one of the simplest kind, was thus obtained; and Nägeli attempted in 1849 a mechanical explanation of the movements of swarmspores, while in 1859 De Bary exhibited in the Myxomycetes most instructive examples of such movements. If Nägeli failed in his attempt, yet it seemed possible that the protoplasm had an important share in the production of all phytodynamic phenomena, and the idea appeared capable of a very wide application when Unger pointed out in 1855 the resemblance between vegetable and animal protoplasm. It is true that not one of these later observations led to any conclusive results till after 1860; but that the whole subject of phytodynamics had made considerable advance as early as 1850 is apparent from the account given of it by von Mohl in his ‘Vegetabilische Zelle’ of 1851, and by Unger in his ‘Lehrbuch der Anatomie und Physiologie der Pflanzen’ of 1855. Von Mohl chiefly exposes the unsatisfactory nature of the attempts that had been made to explain the phenomena; Unger, on the other hand, shows how much that is fundamentally important had been already established.

The mechanics of growth had not been included by former writers among the phenomena of phytodynamics, nor was it so included by either Unger or von Mohl. It seemed to be supposed that there was a fundamental difference between growth and other movements in the vegetable kingdom, and this idea was entertained even in the most recent times. From the time of Mariotte and Hales no one had made the mechanical laws of growth the subject of special investigation or theoretical consideration; yet some observations had been made on the formal relations of growth and its dependence on external influences. Ohlert (1837) was the first after Du Hamel who studied the distribution of growth in the root; Cotta in 1806, Chr. F. Meyer in 1808, Cassini in 1821, Steinheil and others made measurements in connection with the same question in the stem, but only with the result of showing that the distribution of growth at the internodes may vary very greatly, and even Münter’s measurements in growing internodes in 1841 and 1843, and Grisebach’s in 1843 led to no appreciable result, because the observers neglected to apply the figures obtained to the theory of the subject. It seemed to be generally supposed that it was enough simply to write down the measurements in figures, and that a theoretical result would spring into being of itself; on the contrary the real scientific work begins after the figures are obtained. The same cause prevented the observations which have yet to be mentioned from producing real fruit. The influence of the variability of the temperature of the air[138], and of the alternation of daylight and darkness on the longitudinal growth of internodes and leaves after they have emerged from the bud-condition, had often been investigated; Christian Jacob Trew published in 1727 long-continued daily measurements on the flowering stem of Agave Americana in conjunction with observations on temperature and weather; a hundred years later similar observations were made by Ernst Meyer in 1827, by Mulder in 1829, and by Van der Hopp and De Vriese in 1847 and 1848; but Harting in 1842 and Caspary in 1856 were the first who went at all deeply into the questions involved. These observations, some of which were carefully made, led to no further result than the discovery of the fact, which Münter indicated and Harting applied to theoretical purposes but which no one else thought worthy of attention, namely that the rate of growth increases at first and independently of external causes, till it reaches a maximum, and then decreases till at length it comes to an end; they did not even establish a really practical method of observation. Scarcely two observers arrived at the same result, because the questions respecting the relations of growth in length to temperature and light had not been clearly and distinctly put. Communications were published in the periodicals, which simply tabled long-continued measurements of the longitudinal growth of parts of plants, and gave an idea of constant irregularity of growth, without suggesting any explanation of the causes which produced it; so indistinct were the ideas of observers on these subjects even after 1850, that the majority of them proposed to themselves the question, what difference there is between growth by day and by night; it did not occur to them that day and night are not simple forces of nature, but different and very variable complications of external conditions of growth, such as temperature, light and moisture, and that such a mode of putting the question could not possibly lead to the discovery of the relations established by law, so long as the several factors were unknown which are included in the conceptions of day and night. Harting’s essay of 1842 is superior to those above mentioned, inasmuch as he distinctly endeavoured to obtain from his measurements some definite propositions that might be applied to the theory of the subject, and especially to give a mathematical expression to the dependence of growth on temperature, but his success in this particular point was not great. The idea, that there must be a simple arithmetical relation to be discovered between growth and temperature, had been suggested by Adanson in the previous century, and it found many supporters in the period between 1840 and 1860: but it should be observed that the term growth was used in a loose and popular sense to sum up all the phenomena of vegetation in one expression. Adanson had supposed that the time occupied in the unfolding of the bud was determined by the sum of the degrees of the mean daily temperature, reckoned from the beginning of the year; Senebier, and at a later time De Candolle, declared against the existence of any such relation, but a similar idea was not only very generally entertained after 1840, but it even came to be treated as a probable natural law. Boussingault had pointed out that in the case of cultivated plants in Europe and America, if the whole period of vegetation expressed in days is multiplied by the mean temperature of the same period, the products do not deviate widely from one another in the same species. It was thereupon assumed that these deviations are due to incorrect observation, and that such a constant product of the period of vegetation and the mean temperature will be found in every species. This product then received the unmeaning appellation of the sum of the temperature. If such a relation between vegetation and temperature really exists, it would necessarily follow that other things, such as light, moisture, the soil, &c., have no influence at all on the period of vegetation, not to speak of those internal causes which help to complicate the simplest processes of growth. It is unnecessary to expose in this place the absurdities involved in this idea of the sum of the temperature; the needful remarks will be found in the ‘Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Botanik’ of 1860, i. p. 370. It is a remarkable fact however that such monstrous reasoning should have been able to prejudice science in various ways even later than the year 1860. A new science was actually invented and called Phaenology, which accumulated thousands and thousands of figures, in order to discover the sum of the temperature for every plant, and as this crude empiricism showed that the simple multiplication of the period of vegetation by the temperature gave no constant result, the square of the temperature was tried and other tricks of arithmetic adopted. Though Alphonse de Candolle as early as 1850 expressed well-founded objections to the whole of this method of treating the subject, in which the mean temperature played much too important a part, yet he was so far unable to keep clear of the prevailing ideas, that he thought he could express the effect of light by an equivalent number of degrees of temperature, and so save the supposed law of temperature in vegetation. To this idea may be traced his work on the geography of plants, published in two volumes in 1855, which however contains a rich treasure of personal experience and knowledge of the works of other writers.

It appears then that scarcely any point of fundamental importance in phytodynamics was cleared up before the period at which this history closes; it was not till after that date that these questions began to be studied from new points of view, and they are at the present time still under discussion.

INDEX.

Adanson, 66, 116, 545, 561.

Aepinus, 257.

Agardh, 143, 160, 205, 352.

Albertus Magnus, 14.

Aldrovandi, 18.

Alpino, 380.

Alston, 402.

Amici, 223, 284, 371, 432, 434, 558.

Ammann, 39.

Aristotle, 4, 6, 13, 16, 43, 51, 219, 376, 450.

Astruc, 543.

Bachmann, 7, 39, 63, 74-76, 83, 101.

Baisse (de la Baisse), 483.

Banks, 139.

Bartling, 144, 145.

Batsch, 125, 137, 143.

Bauhin, Kaspar, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 24-26, 33, 39, 64, 80, 100, 115.

Bazin, 543.

Beale, 472.

Berkeley, 205.

Bernhardi, 109, 225, 256, 263-266, 347.

Bischoff, 161, 198, 207, 438, 439.

Blair, Patrick, 391.

Bock, Hieronymus, 3, 13, 14, 19, 24, 27, 28.

Boehmer, 248, 483.

Boerhaave, 78.

Bonnet, 163, 247, 486-488, 541.

Borelli, 536.

Bornet, 210, 443.

Boussingault, 373, 449, 531, 561.

Bradley, 391, 406.

Braun, A., 162, 165, 169, 170-181, 184, 208, 312, 314, 334, 336, 442, 558.

Bravais, 169.

Brisseau-Mirbel, 198, 224, 226, 250, 256, 259, 261, 262, 272-275, 284, 307, 311, 321.

Brongniart, Adolph, 147, 321, 432, 436.

Brown, Robert, 110, 112, 122, 139-144, 155, 151, 227, 323, 433.

Brücke, 339, 536, 557.

Brunfels, 3, 5, 13, 14.

Brunn, 255.

Buffon, 89.

Burckhard, 83, 391, 397.

Burnett, 550.

Calandrini, 486.

Camerarius, Rud. Jak., 60, 77, 81, 87, 361, 376, 385-390, 406.

Candolle, (_see_ De Candolle).

Caspary, 560.

Cassini, 559.

Cesalpino, Andrea, 5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 23, 37, 40, 42-57, 61, 63, 80, 81, 103, 125, 163, 219, 220, 450.

Cessati, 213.

Choulant, 19.

Clusius (_see_ de l’Écluse).

Cohn, 209, 213, 442.

Comparetti, 249, 263, 282.

Corda, 184, 205.

Cordus, Valerius, 29, 536.

Cornulus, Jakob, 537.

Corti, 314, 513, 545, 558.

Cotta, 506, 559.

Covolo, dal, 410, 545.

Cramer, Karl, 203.

Dalechamps, 29, 30.

Darwin, Chas., 11, 12, 49, 53, 152, 169, 180, 183, 351, 431.

Daubeny, 557.

De Bary, 210, 213-215, 292, 314, 318, 339, 372, 443, 559.

Decaisne, 442.

De Candolle, Alphonse, 562.

De Candolle, Pyrame, 9, 71, 92, 110, 112, 122, 126-139, 307, 484, 515, 537, 554, 555, 561.

De la Baisse, 483.

De Lamarck, 127.

De l’Écluse, 13, 18, 19, 29-31, 55.

De la Hire, 543.

De l’Obel, 3, 6, 13, 17, 23, 26, 32, 35, 58, 64, 67.

Desfontaines, 136, 293, 307.

De Vriese, 508, 560.

Dillenius (Dillen), 76, 211, 437.

Dioscorides, 3, 4, 13, 15, 28, 34.

Dippel, 343.

Dodart, 538, 547.

Dodoens (Dodonaeus), 13, 18, 22, 29, 30.

Draper, 557.

Du Hamel du Monceau, 89, 247, 368, 488-491, 542-545, 559.

Du Petit-Thouars, 137, 489.

Durand, 556.

Dutrochet, 212, 370, 509-514, 550, 552, 553.

Ehrenberg, 208, 211, 322, 354, 438.

Eichler, 350.

Endlicher, 9, 110, 146, 333.

Erlach, 354.

Fabri, 403.

Fischer, 509.

Fogel, 59.

Frank, 39, 343.

Fries, Elias, 10, 111, 153, 205.

Fuchs, 3, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 24.

Fürnrohr, 192.

Gärtner, Karl Friedrich, 370, 421, 427-430.

Gärtner, Joseph, 23, 110, 122-125, 207, 413.

Galen, 3, 15.

Garcias del Huerto, 536.

Gardner, 557.

Gaudichand, 293.

Geoffrey, 391, 395.

Gesner, Konrad, 18, 20, 29, 379.

Ghini, Luca, 18.

Girou de Bouzareingue, 422, 426.

Giseke, 137.

Gleditsch, 211, 212, 391, 393.

Gleichen-Russworm, 247, 249, 263 404, 431.

Goeppert, 184, 370, 507.

Goethe, 62, 144, 156-160, 263, 390.

Grew, Nehemiah, 69, 89, 93, 97, 221, 222, 223, 225, 231, 232, 234, 239-244, 263, 382-385, 551.

Grischow, 506.

Grisebach, 560.

Guillemain, 557.

Haartman, 400.

Hales, 89, 224, 363, 476-482, 539.

Haller, 66, 89, 404.

Hanstein, Johannes, 203, 343, 348, 350.

Hartig, Theodor, 301, 314, 342, 354, 532, 534.

Harting, 303, 560, 561.

Harvey, 205.

Hassenfratz, 495.

Hebenstreit, 76.

Hedwig, 123, 198, 207, 224, 253-255, 263, 283, 431, 437, 438.

Henfrey, 312, 335, 440.

Henschel, August, 422, 424, 425.

Herbert, William, 370, 420, 421, 431.

Hermann, 68.

Heucher, 76.

Hill, 76, 544.

Hofmeister, Wilhelm, 11, 118, 167, 170, 184, 199-203, 208, 209, 210, 228, 312, 318, 335, 336, 371, 439, 440.

Hooke, Robert, 221, 223, 229-232, 536.

Hornschuch, 206.

Ingen-Houss, 224, 368, 491, 493, 494-497.

Irmisch, 165.

Jessen, 397.

Johnson, 549.

Jungermann, 39.

Jung (Jungius), 40, 43, 58-63, 64, 73, 80, 115, 155, 221, 381, 454-456.

Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de, 9, 23, 77, 92, 109, 110, 116-122, 125, 155, 431

Jussieu, Bernard de, 9, 41, 109, 115.

Karsten, 313, 320.

Kessler, 19.

Kieser, 160, 283, 320.

Knaut, Christopher, 74, 76.

Knight, Andrew, 421, 431, 506, 548.

Kölliker, 313.

Koelreuter, 89, 122, 123, 247, 406-414, 431, 437, 544, 545.

Kützing, 205, 206.

Lantzius-Beninga, 198.

Lavoisier, 491, 492, 507.

Leeuwenhoek, 223, 244, 245, 259.

Leibnitz, 83, 391, 397.

Leitgeb, 203.

Lesczyc-Suminsky, 438, 441.

L’Heritier, 137.

Léveillé, 205.

Liebig, 373, 449, 525-531.

Lindley, 9, 147, 148.

Lindsay, 550.

Link, 161, 211, 225, 233-259, 261, 267-270, 310, 505, 546.

Linnaeus, 8-10, 37, 40, 41, 49, 56, 65, 71, 79-108, 113, 118, 397-402, 431.

Lister, 470.

Lobelius (_see_ de l’Obel).

Logan, James, 391, 392.

Ludwig, 76, 248.

Macaire, Prinsep, 511.

Magnol, 8, 470.

Mairan, 544.

Major, Johann Daniel, 456, 460, 469.

Malpighi, 44, 48, 63, 69, 89, 155, 221, 223, 231-239, 241, 262, 363, 366, 367, 381, 457-461.

Man, James, 258.

Marcet, 506.

Mariotte, 461-470, 539.

Mattioli, 3, 18, 29.

Mayo, 550.

Medicus, 255, 267.

Menzel, 39.

Mercklin, 441.

Mettenius, 198, 202, 439.

Meyen, 208, 225, 226, 259, 260, 284-292, 305, 310, 322, 333, 351, 508, 514, 523, 554, 555, 558.

Meyer, Chr., 559.

Meyer, Ernst, 18, 160, 161, 401, 560.

Micheli, 211, 437.

Mikan, 385.

Milde, 202, 440.

Millardet, 350.

Miller, 391, 392.

Millington, 382, 384, 385, 399.

Mirbel (_see_ Brisseau-Mirbel).

Mohl, Hugo von, 105, 161, 183, 192, 223, 226, 227, 259, 260, 284, 291-311, 318, 321, 325, 329, 336, 340, 349, 350, 351, 354, 355, 374, 529-532, 550, 551, 558.

Moldenhawer, J. J. P., 225, 257-261 276-284.

Morison, 7, 8, 63, 66-68, 101.

Morland, Samuel, 391, 394.

Morren, 208, 322.

Mulder, 303, 529, 560.

Müller, 343.

Münter, 560.

Mustel, 266, 267, 490.

Nägeli, 11, 63, 118, 161, 166, 183, 185, 193-197, 208, 226, 227, 297, 302, 312-316, 318, 326-334, 336, 340, 346-356, 438, 558, 559.

Naumann, 169.

Needham, 431.

Nees von Essenbeck, 160, 205, 212, 438.

Nieuwentyt, 472.

Oelhafen, 39.

Ohlert, 559.

Oken, 161.

Palm, 550.

Payen, 303.

Payer, 191, 556, 557.

Percival, 547.

Perrault, 403, 460, 470.

Persoon, 211.

Plato, 11.

Platz, Wilhelm, 483.

Pliny, 3, 13. 15, 34, 378.

Ploessl, 258.

Poggioli, 556.

Polstorff, 526.

Pontedera, 391, 399, 401.

Priestley, 491-494.

Pringsheim, 203, 209, 210, 213, 318, 372, 442, 443.

Radlkofer, 314, 350, 354, 435.

Ramisch, 422, 426.

Raspail, 320.

Ratzenberger, 19.

Ray, 7, 8, 39, 40, 59, 60, 63, 67, 68-74, 101, 115, 384, 471, 536-538.

Reichel, Christian, 484.

Rivinus (_see_ Bachmann).

Roemer, 401.

Roeper, 144, 371, 555.

Rudbeck, 76, 79.

Rudolphi, 211, 256, 258, 267-270.

Ruppius, 76.

Saint-Hilaire, Auguste de, 149.

Saint-Pierre, 137.

Salm-Horstmar, 532.

Sanio, Karl, 309, 316, 318, 341, 349, 350.

Sarrabat (_see_ de la Baisse).

Saussure, Theodore de, 126, 369, 370, 497-504, 506, 531.

Sbaraglia, 472.

Schacht, Hermann, 280, 283, 302, 305, 318, 337, 338, 341, 343, 345, 348, 434, 435.

Schaeffer, J. C., 211.

Scheffer, 39.

Schellhammer, 74.

Schelver, F. J., 422, 424.

Schimper, C. Friedr., 162-170.

Schimper, W. B., 198.

Schlechtendal, 192.

Schleiden, 63, 161, 179, 183, 188-193, 226, 297, 302, 311, 322, 323, 326, 341, 345, 433-436, 529, 558.

Schmidel, 20, 123, 197, 438.

Schmitz, 212, 556.

Schrank, Paula, 255, 425.

Schulz-Schulzenstein, 293, 300, 320, 545.

Schulze, Franz, 284, 318, 373.

Schulze, Max, 314, 339.

Schwann, 313.

Schwendener, 215.

Selligue, 258.

Senebier, 126, 224, 249, 369, 495-497, 547, 561.

Sharroc, 537.

Smith, 545.

Spallanzani, Lazaro, 422-424.

Sprengel, Konrad, 363, 368, 414-422.

Sprengel, Kurt, 66, 125, 224, 256, 259, 262, 263, 268, 320, 469.

Steinheil, 559.

Sternberg, 184.

Suminsky (_see_ Lesczye-Suminsky).

Thal (Thalius), 18.

Theophrastus, 3, 4, 13, 15-17, 34, 219, 377.

Thümmig, 248, 473.

Thuret, 209, 210, 314, 372, 442, 443.

Tonge, 470.

Tournefort, Pitton de, 7, 8, 39, 63, 76 79, 83, 101, 115, 391, 401, 544.

Tragus (_see_ Bock).

Trentepohl, 206, 207.

Treviranus, 19, 161, 256, 261, 267, 270-272, 275, 290, 310, 320, 425, 520-524, 545.

Trew, 560.

Trog, 212.

Tulasne, 213, 435.

Turpin, 320.

Unger, 161, 184, 198, 206, 227, 300, 305, 312, 314, 318, 325-329, 333, 336-340, 346, 375, 438, 559.

Vagetius, 59.

Vaillant, Sebastian, 391, 397, 398.

Valentin, 355, 386, 387, 402.

Van der Hopp, 560.

Van Deyl, 257.

Van Helmont, 455.

Varro, 535.

Vaucher, 126, 207, 372, 438, 545.

Voight, 160.

Volkamer, 39.

Vrolik, 508.

Wallroth, 215.

Walther, Friedrich, 483.

Weickert, 257.

Wiegman, 526.

Wigand, 105, 341, 558.

Wilbrand, 425.

Willoughby, 470.

Wolff, Christian, 221, 247, 402, 403, 472-476.

Wolff, Kaspar Friedr., 44, 155, 190, 249-253, 273, 275, 276, 319, 405.

Woodward, 472.

Wright, 257.

Wydler, 165.

Zaluziansky, 380, 381.

Zantedeschi, 557.

Zinn, 544.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It will be shown in a later chapter that Linnaeus’ sexual system was intended to be artificial.

[2] Kurt Sprengel in his ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. 1817, and Ernst Meyer in his ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv. 1857 have described the connection between the first beginnings of modern botany and the general state of learning in the 15th and 16th centuries; a particularly interesting notice of Valerius Cordus from the pen of Thilo Irmisch will be found in the ‘Prüfungsprogramm’ of the Schwarzburg gymnasium of Sondershausen for 1862. Here, as throughout, the present work will be confined to the investigation and description of the development of strictly botanical ideas.

[3] Otto Brunfels, born at Mainz before the year 1500, was at first a student of theology and a monk; becoming a convert to Protestantism he was actively engaged at Strassburg first as a teacher and afterwards as a physician; he died in 1534.

[4] Beside the herbals mentioned in the text, which may be regarded as scientific works on botany, a considerable number of books on the signature of plants were written in the 16th and 17th centuries in the interests of medicine or medical superstition. It was believed that certain external marks and resemblances between parts of plants and the organs of the human body indicated the plants and the parts of them which possessed healing virtues. Pritzel mentions by name twenty-four works of the kind, which appeared between 1550 and 1697. The herbals also noticed the signatures, and even Ray has an enquiry into the subject.

[5] The fragments of Aristotelian botany which have come down to us are to be found translated from Wimmer’s edition in Ernst Meyer’s ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. p. 94.

[6] Ernst Meyer (Geschichte der Botanik) gives a full account of Theophrastus, who was born at Lesbos A.C. 371 and died A.C. 286. An edition of his work ‘De historia et de causis plantarum’ was published by Theodor Gaza in 1483. See also Pritzel’s ‘Thesaurus literarum botanicarum.’

[7] See L. C. Treviranus in his work, ‘Die Anwendung des Holzschnitts zur bildlichen Darstellung der Pflanzen,’ Leipzig, 1855, and Choulant ‘Graphische Incunabeln,’ Leipzig, 1858.

[8] Konrad Gesner, born in Zürich in 1516, became after many vicissitudes of fortune Professor of Natural History in his native town, and died there of the plague in 1565. See Ernst Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv.

[9] Leonhard Fuchs, born at Membdingen in Bavaria in 1501, was a student of the classics under Reuchlin in Ingolstadt in 1519, and became Doctor of Medicine in 1524. Owing to his conversion to Protestantism he led an unsettled life for some years, but was finally made Professor of Medicine in Tübingen in 1535, and died there in 1566. See Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv.

[10] Rembert Dodoens (Dodonaeus), born at Malines in 1517, was a physician, and a man of varied culture; he published a number of botanical works, some of them in Flemish, after 1552, and finally in 1583 his ‘Stirpium Historiae Pemptades vi’ (Antwerp). From 1574 to 1579 he was physician to the Emperor Maximilian II. In 1582 he became Professor in Leyden and died in 1585. See Ernst Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv. p. 340.

[11] Hieronymus Bock (Tragus) was born at Heiderbach in the Zweibrücken in 1498; he was destined to the cloister, but embraced Protestantism and became a schoolmaster in Zweibrücken and superintendent of the Prince’s garden; he was afterwards preacher in Hornbach, where he practised also as a physician and pursued his botanical studies; he died in 1554. See Ernst Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv. p. 303.

[12] Pierandrea Mattioli, who was born at Siena in 1501 and died there in 1577, was for many years physician at the court of Ferdinand I. He wrote rather in the interests of medicine than of botany; his herbal, originally a commentary on Dioscorides, was gradually enlarged and went through more than sixty editions and issues in different languages. See Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ vi.

[13] Charles de l’Écluse (Carolus Clusius) was born in Arras in 1526. His family suffered from religious persecution in France, and he spent the greater part of his life in Germany and the Netherlands; in 1573 he removed to Vienna by the invitation of Maximilian II; in 1593 he became professor in Leyden and died there in 1609. See Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv, who gives full information respecting the eventful life of this distinguished man.

[14] Jacques Dalechamps, a native of Caen, who died in 1588, was a philologist rather than an original investigator of nature, as is remarked by Meyer in his ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ vi. p. 395.

[15] Mathias de l’Obel (Lobelius), the friend and fellow-countryman of Dodoens and de l’Écluse, was born at Lille in 1538 and died in England in 1616. A full account of this botanist will be found in Meyer.

[16] Kaspar Bauhin was born at Basle in 1550, and like his elder brother John studied under Fuchs; he collected plants in Switzerland, Italy, and France, and became professor in Basle; he died in 1624. Some account is given of him and of his brother by Haller in the preface to his ‘Historia Stirpium Helvetiae’ (1768), and by Sprengel in his ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. p. 364 (1818).

[17] Andrea Cesalpino (Caesalpinus) of Arezzo was born in 1519. He was a pupil of Ghini and professor at Pisa, and afterwards physician to Pope Clement VIII. He died in 1603.

[18] We find it stated in Theophrastus that if the pith of the vine is destroyed the grapes contain no stones; this evidently points to a still higher antiquity for the view that the seeds are formed from the pith; see the De causis plantarum, v. ch. 5, in the ‘Theophrasti quae supersunt opera’ of Schneider, Leipzig, 1818.

[19] These words are quoted by Linnaeus in the ‘Philosophia Botanica,’ par. 159.

[20] See his biography by Guhrauer, ‘Joachim Jungius und sein Zeitalter,’ Tübingen, 1850; on his place in philosophy consult Ueberweg (‘Geschichte der Philosophie,’ iii. p. 119), who regards him as a forerunner of Leibnitz.

[21] Morison served in the royal army against Cromwell, and after the defeat of his party retired to Paris, where he studied botany under Robin. He was made physician to Charles II and Professor of Botany in 1660, and Professor of the same faculty in Oxford ten years later. See Sprengel, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ ii. p. 30.

[22] The wood-engraving of the 16th century had fallen into decay, and engraving on copper-plate had taken its place. A thick volume of figures of plants in the largest folio size engraved on copper, the ‘Hortus Eistädtensis,’ appeared in the beginning of the 17th century.

[23] John Ray, born at Black Notley in Essex, was also a zoologist of eminence. He studied theology and travelled in England and on the continent, and afterwards devoted himself entirely to science, being supported by a pension from Willoughby. See Carus, ‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ p. 428.

[24] A. Q. Bachmann (Rivinus) was the third son of Andreas Bachmann, a physician and philologist of Halle. He is said to have spent 80,000 florins on the publication of his works and the providing them with the 500 copper-plates with which they were illustrated. A life of him and just estimate of his work, by Du Petit-Thouars, is to be found in the ‘Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne.’

[25] Tournefort was born at Aix in Provence, and received his early education in a Jesuit college. He was intended for the Church, but after his father’s death, in 1677, he was able to devote himself entirely to botany. After travelling in France and Spain, he became Professor at the Jardin des Plantes in 1683; but while thus engaged he made various journeys in Europe, and in 1700 visited Greece, Asia, and Africa—everywhere diligently collecting the plants which he afterwards described.

[26] In addition to the Autobiography of Linnaeus, various accounts of his life have been written, some of which are mentioned in Pritzel’s ‘Thesaurus Lit. Bot.’ A strange revelation of his character and sentiments is to be found in his treatise on the ‘Nemesis divina,’ which he bequeathed to his son. Of this work Professor Fries has unfortunately published an epitome only, which is noticed in the Regensburg Flora, No. 44 (1851). On Linnaeus’ services to zoology, see Carus, ‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ München, 1872.

[27] Printed in Jessen’s ‘Botanik der Gegenwart and Vorzeit,’ p. 287.

[28] ‘Epistola ad Godofredum Gulielmum Leibnitzium etc. cum Laurentii Heisteri praefatione,’ Helmstadii, 1750.

[29] See the excellent account of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies and of scholasticism in Albert Lange’s ‘Geschichte des Materialismus,’ second edition, 1874.

[30] The comparison of the vegetable seed with the egg in animals, which is in itself incorrect, comes, as Aristotle tells us, from Empedocles, and was a favourite one with the systematists.

[31] Linnaeus uses the word ‘herba’ for the older word ‘germen,’ which with him means the ovary.

[32] It would not be difficult to prove that the doctrine of the constancy of species is properly a conclusion from scholasticism, and ultimately from the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and was therefore assumed as self-evident before the time of Linnaeus, who only gave it a more distinct and conscious expression; his arguments from experience are without force. The strength of the dogma lies in its relation to the platonico-scholastic philosophy, which the systematists followed, more or less consciously, up to quite recent times.

[33] The authority for the contents of these dissertations is Wigand’s ‘Kritik und Geschichte der Metamorphose’ (1846).

[34] Bernard de Jussieu, born at Lyons in 1699, and at first a practising physician there, was by Vaillant’s intervention called to Paris, and after Vaillant’s death became Professor and Demonstrator at the Royal Garden. He and Peissonel were among the first who declared against the vegetable nature of the Corals. It is expressly stated in his Éloge (‘Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences,’ Paris, 1777) that he founded his natural families on the Linnaean fragment. He died in 1777.

[35] A. L. de Jussieu, born at Lyons, came to Paris to his uncle Bernard in 1765. In 1790 he was a member of the Municipality, and till 1792 Superintendent of Hospitals. When the Annales du Museum were founded in 1802, he resumed his botanical pursuits. In 1826 his son Adrien took his place at the Museum. See his life by Brougniart in the ‘Annales des Sciences Naturelles,’ vii (1837).

[36] Joseph Gärtner was born at Calw in Würtemberg in 1732, and died in 1791. He commenced his studies in Göttingen in 1751, where he was a pupil of Haller. He travelled into Italy, France, Holland, and England in order to make the acquaintance of famous naturalists, and worked also at physics and zoology. In 1760 he was Professor of Anatomy in Tübingen, and in 1768 became Professor of Botany at St. Petersburg; but finding himself unable to bear the climate, he returned to Calw in 1770, and gave himself up entirely to his book, ‘De fructibus et seminibus plantarum,’ which he had already commenced. Banks and Thunberg, one of whom had returned from a voyage round the world, the other from Japan, handed over to him the collections of fruits which they had made. His persistent study, partly with the microscope, brought him near to blindness. There is an interesting life of Gärtner by Chaumeton in the ‘Biographie Universelle.’

[37] Augustin Pyrame de Candolle sprang from a Provençal family, which had fled from religious persecution to Geneva, where it was and is still held in great estimation. He associated as a boy with Vaucher, and on his first visit to Paris in 1796 with Desfontaines and Dolomieu, and after his return to Geneva was a friend of Senebier. The elder Saussure, and afterwards Biot, whom he assisted in an investigation in physics, endeavoured to attach him to that study. He spent the years from 1798 to 1808 in Paris, where he lived in close intercourse with the naturalists of that city. Numerous smaller monographs, and the publication of his work on succulent plants and of a new edition of De Lamarck’s ‘Flore Française,’ occupied this earlier period of his life. From 1808 to 1816 he was Professor of Botany at Montpellier. During this time he made many botanical journeys in all parts of France and the neighbouring countries, and wrote many monographs, his essays on the geography of plants, and his most important work, the ‘Théorie élémentaire.’ From 1816 till his death in 1841 he resided once more in Geneva, which had freed itself in 1813 from the enforced connection with France established in 1798. Here De Candolle found time to take part in political and social questions, in addition to an almost incredible amount of botanical labour. (Notice sur la vie et les ouvrages de A. P. De Candolle par De la Rive, Genève, 1845.)

[38] Robert Brown was the son of a Protestant minister of Montrose, and studied medicine first at Aberdeen and afterwards in Edinburgh; he then became a surgeon in the army, and was at first stationed in the north of Ireland. When the Admiralty despatched a scientific expedition to Australia under Captain Flinders in 1801, he was appointed naturalist to the expedition on the recommendation of Sir Joseph Banks, F. Bauer being associated with him as botanical draughtsman, Good as gardener, Westall as landscape-painter; one of the midshipmen of the vessel was John Franklin. In consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship Flinders left Australia, intending to return with a better one, but was shipwrecked on the voyage and detained by the French at Port Louis as a prisoner of war till 1810. The naturalists of the expedition remained in Australia till 1805, when Brown returned to England with 4000 for the most part new species of plants. Sir J. Banks appointed him his librarian and keeper of his collections in 1810; he was also Librarian to the Linnaean Society of London. In 1823 he received the bequest of Banks’ library and collections, which were to be transferred after his death to the British Museum; but by his own wish they were deposited there at once, and he himself received the appointment of Custodian of the Museum and remained in that position till his death. At Humboldt’s suggestion Sir Robert Peel’s Ministry granted him a yearly pension of £200. His merits were universally acknowledged, and Humboldt even named him ‘botanicorum facile princeps.’

[39] Stephen Ladislaus Endlicher was born at Pressburg in 1805, and abandoning the study of theology became Scriptor in the Imperial Library at Vienna in 1828, and in 1836 Custos of the botanical department of the Imperial Collection of Natural History. Having graduated at the University in 1840, he became Professor of Botany and Director of the Botanic Garden. His library and herbarium, valued at 24,000 thalers, he presented to the State, and with his private means founded the Annalen des Wiener-Museums, purchased botanical collections and expensive botanical books, and published his own works and works of other writers. His official salary was small, and having exhausted his resources in these various expenses, he put an end to his own life in March 1849. Endlicher was not only one of the most eminent systematists of his day, but a philologist also, and a good linguist. He wrote among other things a Chinese grammar. See ‘Linnaea,’ vol. xxxiii (1864 and 1865), p. 583.

[40] John Lindley, Professor of Botany in the University of London, was born at Chatton near Norwich in 1799, and died in London in 1865.

[41] Auguste de Saint Hilaire was born at Orleans in 1779, and died there in 1853; he was Professor at Paris, and in 1840 published his ‘Leçons de Botanique comprenant principalement la Morphologie Végétale,’ etc. This work contains a somewhat diffuse account of P. de Candolle’s doctrine of symmetry, together with Goethe’s theory of metamorphosis and Schimper’s doctrine of phyllotaxis, and his own views also on classification founded on the comparative morphology of the day. It is marked by fewer errors than will be found in Lindley’s theoretical writings, but it is less profound, and touches only incidentally on fundamental questions; at the same time it possesses historical interest as giving a lucid description of the state of morphology before 1840.

[42] See Wigand, ‘Geschichte und Kritik der Metamorphose,’ Leipzig, 1846, p. 38.

[43] See Goethe’s collected works in forty volumes, Cotta, 1858, vol. xxxvi.

[44] See Haeckel, ‘Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,’ ed. 4, 1873, p. 80.

[45] Louis Marie Aubert du Petit-Thouars was born in Anjou in 1758 and collected plants during many years in the Mauritius, Madagascar, and Bourbon. He was afterwards Director of the Botanic Garden at Roule, and became Member of the Academy in 1820. He died in 1831. His articles in the ‘Biographie Universelle’ prove him to have been a writer of ability. Preconceived opinions interfered with the success of his own investigations, especially into the increase in thickness of woody stems, and obstinate adherence to such notions prevented an unbiassed interpretation of what he saw. See Flora, 1845, p. 439.

[46] K. F. Schimper, born in Mannheim in 1803, was at first a student of theology in Heidelberg, but having afterwards travelled as a paid collector of plants in the south of France, he applied himself to the study of medicine. From 1828 to 1842 he was employed as a teacher in the University of Munich, though occasionally engaged in exploring the Alps, Pyrenees, and other districts, in the service of the King of Bavaria. It was during this period of his life that he composed his most important works on phyllotaxis, and essays on the former extension of glaciers, and on the glacial period. He returned to the Palatinate in 1842, and died at Schwetzingen in 1867 in the enjoyment of a pension from the Grand duke of Baden.

[47] See Hofmeister, ‘Allgemeine Morphologie’ (1868), pp. 471, 479, and Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ ed. 4 (1874), p. 195.

[48] See Nägeli, ‘Beiträge zur Wissenschaftlichen Botanik’ (1858), I, pp. 40, 49.

[49] A comparison of the two theories and a refutation of Schleiden’s assertion, that that of the brothers Bravais expresses better ‘the simplicity of the law,’ will be found in ‘Flora,’ 1847, No. 13, from the pen of Sendtner, and in Braun’s ‘Verjüngung,’ p. 126.

[50] This is not at all true of modern inductive science, which merely forms a different idea of the connection, and has regard to the relation between the percipient subject and the phenomena.

[51] See A. Bayer, ‘Leben und Wirken F. Unger’s,’ Gratz (1872), p. 52.

[52] See Darwin’s repudiation of this statement on p. 421 of Ed. 6 of the ‘Origin of Species.’

[53] Casimir Christoph Schmidel was born in 1718 and died in 1792; he was Professor of Medicine in Erlangen, and was the first who described the sexual organs in various Liverworts.

[54] Lantzius Beninga, born in East Friesland in 1815, was a professor in Göttingen, and died in 1871.

[55] Gottlieb Wilhelm Bischoff was born at Dürkheim on the Hardt in 1797, and died as Professor of Botany at Heidelberg in 1854. He wrote various manuals and text-books which are careful and industrious compilations, but being entirely conceived in the spirit of the times preceding Schleiden they are now obsolete; his investigations however into the Hepaticae, Characeae, and Vascular Cryptogams, illustrated by very beautiful drawings from his own hand, are still of value; and the same may be said of his ‘Handbuch der botanischen Terminologie und Systemkunde’ on account of its numerous figures.

[56] Karl Adolf Agardh (1785-1859) was until 1835 Professor in Lund, afterwards Bishop of Wermland and Dalsland. Jacob Georg Agardh, born in 1813, was Professor in Lund. William Henry Harvey (1811-1866) was Professor of Botany in Dublin. Friedrich Traugott Kützing, born in 1807, was Professor in the Polytechnic School of Nordhausen.

[57] C. G. Nees von Esenbeck published his ‘System der Pilze und Schwämme’ in 1816; Th. F. L. Nees von Esenbeck, in conjunction with A. Henty, a ‘System der Pilze’ in 1837. The first (1776-1858) was for a long time President of the Leopoldina, Professor of Botany in Breslau, and one of the chief representatives of the nature-philosophy. Elias Fries, born in 1794, became Professor of Botany in Upsala in 1835; he died in 1878. Léveillé (1796-1870) was a physician in Paris. August Joseph Corda was born at Reichenberg in Bohemia in 1809, and became custodian of the National Museum in Prague in 1835; he undertook a journey to Texas in 1848, from which he never returned, having probably perished by shipwreck in 1849. Weitenweber, in the ‘Abhandlungen der Böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft,’ Bd. 7, Prag, 1852, gives a full account of this eminent mycologist. Corda was the first who thoroughly applied the microscope to copying and describing every form of Fungus that was known to him, and especially the minuter ones. His ‘Icones Fungorum hucusque cognitorum’ (1837-1854) are still an indispensable manual in the study of the subject.

[58] Jean Pierre Étienne Vaucher, the instructor and friend of P. de Candolle, was a minister and professor in Geneva.

[59] Trentepohl’s communication is to be found in the ‘Botanische Bermerkungen und Berichtigungen’ of A. W. Roth, Leipsic, 1807.

[60] Pier’ Antonio Micheli, born at Florence in 1679, was Director of the Botanic Garden there, and died in 1737. Johann Jacob Dillen (Dillenius), born in Darmstadt in 1687, was Professor of Botany in Oxford, and died in 1747. These two botanists were the first who submitted the Mosses and the lower Cryptogams to scientific examination, and endeavoured to prove the presence of sexual organs in these plants.

[61] Jacob Christian Schaeffer, born in 1718, was Superintendent in Regensburg; he died in 1790.

[62] See Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ ed. 4 (1874), p. 245.

[63] Fr. Wilh. Wallroth, born in the Harz in 1792, was district physician at Nordhausen. He died in 1857. See ‘Flora’ for 1857, p. 336.

[64] Robert Hooke, born in 1635 at Freshwater in the Isle of Wight, was a man of marvellous industry and varied acquirement in spite of a delicate constitution. He became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1662, and was afterwards its Secretary and Professor of Geometry in Gresham College. He died in 1703. There is a good account of him by de l’Aulnaye in the ‘Biographie Universelle.’

[65] Marcello Malpighi, born at Crevalcuore near Bologna in 1628, became Doctor of Medicine in 1653, and after 1656 was Professor in Bologna, Pisa, Messina, and a second time in Bologna; in 1691 he was named Physician to Innocent XII. He died in 1694. On his services to comparative anatomy, and the anatomy of the human body, see the ‘Biographie Universelle’ and Carus, ‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ p. 395.

[66] We read at p. 3: ‘Componuntur expositae fistulae (spirales) zona tenui et pellucida, velut argentei coloris, lamina parum lata, quae spiraliter locata et extremis lateribus unita tubum interius et exterius aliquantulum asperum efficit; quin et avulsa zona capites seu extremo trachearum tum plantarum tum insectorum non in tot disparatos annulos resolvitur, ut in perfectorum trachea accidit; sed unica zona in longum soluta et extensa extrahitur.’

[67] Nehemiah Grew, the son of a clergyman in Coventry, appears to have been born in 1628. Having taken a Doctor’s degree in a foreign University, he practised as a physician in his native town, and pursued at the same time his phytotomical researches. He became Secretary to the Royal Society in 1677, and published his ‘Cosmographia Sacra’ in 1701. He died in 1711. See the ‘Biographie Universelle.’

[68] Leeuwenhoek’s observations in animal anatomy were perhaps more important than those which he made in botany. Carus (‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ p. 399) says of him: ‘While Malpighi used the microscope with system and in accordance with the requirements of a series of investigations, the instrument in the hands of the other famous microscopist of the 17th century was more or less a means of gratifying the curiosity excited in susceptible minds by the wonders of a world which had hitherto been invisible. Still the discoveries, which were the fruit of an assiduous use of the microscope continued during fifty years, embraced many subjects and were important and influential. Anton von Leeuwenhoek was born in Delft in 1632. Being intended for trade, he had not the advantage of a learned education and is said even to have been ignorant of Latin; his favourite occupation was the preparing superior lenses, with which he incessantly examined new objects without being guided at any time by a scientific plan. The Royal Society of London, to whom he communicated his observations, made him a member of their body. He died in his native town in 1723, being ninety years of age.

[69] This subject will be noticed again in the history of the sexual theory.

[70] C. F. Wolff was born at Berlin in 1733. He studied anatomy under Meckel and botany under Gleditsch, in the Collegium Medico-chirurgicum in that city. He afterwards resorted to the University of Halle, and there made acquaintance with the philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolff, which predominates too much in his dissertation, ‘Theoria Generationis’ (1759). Haller, the representative of the theory of evolution against which this work was directed, replied to it in a kindly spirit and entered into a correspondence with its youthful author. After lecturing on medicine in Breslau, he was admitted to teach physiology and other subjects in the Collegium Medico-chirurgicum in Berlin, but was twice passed over in the appointment to professorships in that institution. He received an appointment in the Academy of St. Petersburg from the Empress Catherine II in 1766, and died in that city in 1794. See Alf. Kirchhoff, ‘Idee der Pflanzenmetamorphose,’ Berlin, 1867.

[71] Johannes Hedwig, the founder of the scientific knowledge of the Mosses, was born at Kronstadt in Siebenbürgen in 1730. Having completed his studies at Leipsic, he returned to his native town, but was not permitted to practice there as a physician because he had not taken a degree in Austria. He consequently went back to Saxony and settled first at Chemnitz, and in 1781 in Leipsic. Here he was appointed in 1784 to the Military Hospital, and became Professor extraordinary of Medicine in 1786 and ordinary Professor of Botany in 1789. He died 1799. He commenced his botanical studies as a student at the University, and continued them in Chemnitz under trying circumstances, till as Professor he was free to devote himself entirely to them.

[72] See P. Harting, ‘Das Mikroskop,’ §§ 433 and 434.

[73] Johann Jakob Bernhardi, born in 1774, was Professor of Botany in Erfurt, and died there in 1850.

[74] Karl Asmus Rudolphi, born at Stockholm in 1771, was Professor of Anatomy and Physiology in Berlin, and died there in 1832.

[75] Heinrich Friedrich Link was born at Hildesheim in 1767, and became Doctor of Medicine of Göttingen in 1788. In 1792 he became Professor of Zoology, Botany, and Chemistry in Rostock, Professor of Botany in 1811 in Breslau, and in 1815 in Berlin, where he died in 1851. He was a clever man of very varied accomplishment, but not a very accurate observer of details, and was held in estimation by many chiefly as a good teacher and philosophic author of popular works on natural science. He was one of the few German botanists in the early part of the present century who aimed at a general knowledge of plants, and combined anatomical and physiological enquiries with solid researches in systematic botany. Of his many treatises on all branches of botanical science, zoology, physics, chemistry, and other subjects, his Göttingen prize essay must be considered to have contributed most to the advancement of science. Von Martius somewhat overrates his scientific importance in his ‘Denkrede auf H. F. Link’ in the ‘Gelehrte Anzeigen,’ München (1851), 58-69.

[76] Ludolf Christian Treviranus, born at Bremen in 1779, became Doctor of Medicine of Jena in 1801, and practised at first in his native town, where he became a teacher at the Lyceum in 1807. In 1812 he accepted the professorship in Rostock vacated by Link, and was again his successor in Breslau. In 1830 he exchanged posts with C. G. Nees von Esenbeck, who was a professor in Bonn; he died in that town in 1864. In the first part of his life he occupied himself chiefly with vegetable anatomy and physiology, afterwards with the determination and correction of species. His first works, which are noticed in the text, and the treatises on sexuality and the embryology of the Phanerogams, published between 1815 and 1828, are the most important in a historical point of view. His ‘Physiologie der Gewächse’ in two volumes (1835-1838) is still of value for its accurate information on the literature of the subject; but it can scarcely be said to have contributed to the advance of physiology, for its author adhered in it to the old views, and especially to the notion of the vital force, at a time when new ideas were already asserting themselves. The ‘Botanische Zeitung’ for 1864, p. 176, contains a notice of his life.

[77] Charles François Mirbel (Brisseau-Mirbel) was born at Paris in 1776, and died in 1854. He began life as a painter, but having been introduced by Desfontaines to the study of botany, he became Member of the Institute in 1808, and soon after Professor in the University of Paris. From 1816 to 1825 the cares of administration withdrew him from his botanical studies, but he resumed them and became in 1829 Professeur des cultures in the Museum of Natural History. Mirbel was the founder of microscopic vegetable anatomy in France. All that had been accomplished there before his time was still more unimportant than the work done in Germany. His writings involved him in many controversies, and he made enemies by refusing in his capacity of teacher to allow the importance at that time attributed to systematic botany, but directed his pupils to the study of structure and the phenomena of life in plants. We are told by Milne-Edwards that he suffered much from the fierce attacks which were made upon him; he sank at last into a weak and apathetic state, and was for some time before his death unable to continue his studies or official duties (‘Botanische Zeitung’ for 1855, p. 343).

[78] Johann Jakob Paul Moldenhawer was Professor of Botany in Kiel; he was born at Hamburg in 1766, and died in 1827.

[79] On the doubts which were entertained till after 1812 on the subject of stomata, see Mohl’s ‘Ranken und Schlingpflanzen’ (1827), p. 9.

[80] Franz Julius Ferdinand Meyen was born at Tilsit in 1804, and died as Professor in Berlin in 1840. He applied himself at first to pharmacy and afterwards to medicine, and having taken a degree in 1826 he practised for some years as a physician. In 1830 he set out on a voyage round the world under instructions from A. von Humboldt, and returned in 1832 with large collections. He was made Professor in Berlin in 1834. There is a notice of his life in ‘Flora’ of 1845, p. 618.

[81] Hugo Mohl (afterwards von Mohl) was born at Stuttgart in 1805, and died as Professor of Botany in Tübingen in 1872. His father held an important civil office under the Government of Würtemberg. Robert Mohl, also in the service of the Government, Julius Mohl, the Oriental scholar, and Moritz Mohl, the political economist, were his brothers. The instruction at the Gymnasium at Stuttgart, which he attended for twelve years, was confined to the study of the ancient languages; but Mohl early evinced a preference for natural history, physics, and mechanics, and devoted himself in private to these subjects. He became a student of medicine in Tübingen in 1823, and took his degree in 1828. He then spent several years in Munich in intercourse with Schrank, Martius, Zuccharini and Steinheil and obtained abundant material for his researches into Palms, Ferns, and Cycads. He became Professor of Physiology in Berne in 1832, and Professor of Botany in Tübingen after Schübler’s death in 1835, and there he remained till his death, refusing various invitations to other spheres of work. He was never married, and his somewhat solitary life of devotion to his science was of the simplest and most uneventful kind. He was intimately acquainted with all parts of botanical science, and possessed a thorough knowledge of many other subjects; he was in fact a true and accomplished investigator of nature. A very pleasing sketch of his life from the pen of De Bary is to be found in the ‘Botanische Zeitung’ of 1872, No. 31.

[82] But von Mohl expressed some doubts on this point in 1844 (‘Botanische Zeitung,’ p. 340).

[83] This tertiary layer was at first supposed by Theodor Hartig to be of general occurrence; von Mohl in 1844 considered it to be present only in certain cases.

[84] Anselm Payen (1795-1871) was born at Paris and was Professor of Industrial Chemistry in the École des Arts et Métiers in that city. His most important botanical works were his ‘Mémoire sur l’amidon,’ etc., Paris (1839), and his ‘Mémoire sur le développement des Végétaux,’ published in the Memoirs of the Academy of Paris.

[85] On this point, see von Mohl’s citation in ‘Flora’ of 1827, p. 13. I have not myself been able to consult the originals.

[86] See Meyen, ‘Neues System,’ ii. 344.

[87] Franz Unger was born in 1800 on the estate of Amthof, near Leutschach in South Steiermark, and was educated up to the age of sixteen in the Benedictine Monastery of Gratz. Having gone through the three years’ course of ‘philosophy,’ he turned his attention, by his father’s wish, to jurisprudence; but he abandoned this study in 1820, and became a student of medicine, first in Vienna, and afterwards in Prague. From the latter place he made a vacation tour in Germany, and formed the acquaintance of Oken, Carus, Rudolphi, and other men of science, and in 1825 of Jacquin and Endlicher, with the latter of whom he maintained an active correspondence on scientific subjects. Having taken his degree in 1827, he practised as a physician in Vienna till the year 1830, and after that date was medical official at Kitzbühl in the Tyrol. During these years he continued the botanical studies which he had commenced as a youth, and at Kitzbühl directed special attention to the diseases of plants, to palaeontological researches, and to enquiries into the influence of soil on the distribution of plants. At the end of 1835 he became Professor of Botany at the Johanneum in Gratz, and devoting himself there especially to the study of palaeontology, he soon became the most eminent authority on that subject. Having been made Professor of Vegetable Physiology in Vienna in 1849, he applied himself more to physiology and phytotomy. He retired from this position in 1866, and from that time forward lived as a private individual in Gratz, promoting scientific knowledge by the publication of popular treatises and the delivery of lectures. He died in 1870. Information respecting his personal character and his varied and copious labours in many departments of botanical science is given by Leitgeb in the ‘Botanische Zeitung’ of 1870, No. 16, and by Reyer, ‘Leben und Wirken des Naturhistoriker Unger,’ Gratz, 1871.

[88] Hermann Schacht was born at Ochsenwerder in 1824, and died in 1864 in Bonn, where he had been Professor of Botany since 1859.

[89] See Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ ed. 4 (1874), p. 129 (p. 128 of 2nd English edition).

[90] See Ernst Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ I. p. 98, &c.

[91] The edition here used is that of Gottlob Schneider, ‘Theophrasti Eresii quæ supersunt opera,’ Leipzig, 1818. See in addition to the passages noticed in the text the ‘De Causis,’ l. I. c. 13. 4, and l. IV. c. 4, and the ‘Historia Plantarum,’ l. II. c. 8.

[92] It should be understood that neither Theophrastus nor the botanists of the 16th and 17th centuries considered the rudiments of the fruit to be part of the flower; this, which was pointed out in the history of systematic botany, seems to have been overlooked by Meyer, ‘Geschichte,’ I. p. 164.

[93] The passage is quoted in full in De Candolle’s ‘Physiologie végétale,’ 1835, ii. p. 44. It is said there of the pollen, ‘Ipso et pulvere etiam feminas maritare.’

[94] See De Candolle, ‘Physiologie végétale,’ p. 47.

[95] His ‘Methodus Herbaria’ is said to have been published in 1592. The remarks in the text are made in reliance on a long quotation from it in Roeper’s translation of De Candolle’s ‘Physiologie,’ ii. p. 49, who had before him an edition of 1604.

[96] In the ‘Compositae,’ however, Grew called the single flowers the florid attire, see p. 37.

[97] We may compare with this, pp. 38 and 39 of the first part of the work which appeared in 1671, where Grew ascribed no sexual significance to the stamens.

[98] Rudolph Jacob Camerarius was born at Tübingen in 1665 and died there in 1721. Having completed the course of study in philosophy and medicine, he travelled from 1685 to 1687 in Germany, Holland, England, France, and Italy. In 1688 he became Professor Extraordinary and Director of the Botanic Garden in Tübingen; in 1689 Professor of Natural Philosophy; and finally, in 1695, First Professor of the University, in succession to his father, Elias Rudolph Camerarius. He was afterwards succeeded by his son Alexander, one of ten children. There is an article on Camerarius in the ‘Biographie Universelle,’ from the pen of Du Petit-Thouars. His works on other subjects, as well as those on the question of sexuality in plants, are distinguished by ingenious conception and lucid exposition.

[99] See Patrick Blair’s ‘Botanic Essays,’ in two parts (1720), pp. 242-276. Even the Latin ode is borrowed without acknowledgment.

[100] The account in the text is taken from Koelreuter’s report in his ‘Historie der Versuche über das Geschlechte der Pflanzen,’ as given at p. 188 of Mikan’s ‘Opuscula Botanici Argumenti.’ Logan’s work, ‘Experimenta et Meletamata de Plantarum Generatione,’ unknown to me, is said by Pritzel to have been published at the Hague in 1739. Koelreuter cites from a London edition of 1747.

[101] Koelreuter’s report in Mikan’s collection is again the authority which is here relied on.

[102] Koelreuter says that he sent pollen of Chamaerops in 1766 to St. Petersburg and to Berlin, where it was successfully employed by Eckleben and Gleditsch. He wished to try how long the pollen retains its efficacy.

[103] See Vol. II. p. 502, of the ‘Physiologie végétale.’

[104] See Mikan, ‘Opuscula Botanici Argumenti,’ p. 180.

[105] Joseph Gottlieb Koelreuter was born at Sulz on the Neckar in 1733, and died at Carlsruhe in 1806, where he was Professor of Natural History, and from 1768 to 1786 Director also of the Botanic and Grand-ducal Gardens. On giving up the latter position he continued his experiments in his own small garden till the year 1790. Karl Friedrich Gärtner in his work ‘Ueber Bastardzeugung’ of 1849, at p. 5 says that after the latter date Koelreuter occupied himself with experiments in alchemy; but this must be a mistake. Gärtner, loco cit., and the ‘Flora’ of 1839, p. 245, supply all that seems to be known of the life of this distinguished man. The ‘Biographic Universelle’ contains no account of him. It would appear that he was in St. Petersburg before 1766.

[106] See Gärtner, ‘Ueber Bastardzeugung’ (1849), p. 62. I have unfortunately been unable to meet with the second continuation of Koelreuter’s work.

[107] Christian Konrad Sprengel, born in 1750, was for some time Rector at Spandau. There he began to occupy himself with botany, and devoted so much time to it that he neglected the duties of his office, and even the Sunday’s sermon, and was removed from his post. He afterward lived a solitary life in straitened circumstances in Berlin, being shunned by men of science as a strange, eccentric person. He supported himself by giving instruction in languages and in botany, using his Sundays for excursions, which any one who chose could join on payment of two or three groschen. He met with so little support and encouragement that he never brought out the second part of his famous work; his publisher did not even give him a copy of the first part. Natural disgust at the neglect with which his work was treated made him forsake botany and devote himself to languages. He died in 1816. One of his pupils wrote a very hearty eulogium on him in the ‘Flora’ of 1819, p. 541, which has supplied the above facts.

[108] See Hermann Müller, ‘Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insecten,’ Leipzig (1873). p. 5.

[109] Lazaro Spallanzani was born at Scandiano in Modena, and died at Pavia in 1799, where he was for a long time Professor of Natural History. He made researches in very various questions of natural science, and especially in animal physiology; but they seem to have been conducted with the same want of care and deliberation which appears in his experiments on sexuality in plants. A long article in the ‘Biographie Universelle’ gives a detailed account of his scientific labours.

[110] August Henschel was a practising physician and a University teacher in Breslau.

[111] Karl Friedrich Gärtner, son of Joseph Gärtner, was born at Calw in 1772, and died there in 1850. He attended lectures on natural science at the Carlsacademie at Stuttgart, and then went first to Jena for medical instruction, and in 1795 to Göttingen, where he was a pupil of Lichtenberg. He took a degree in 1796 and settled as a physician in his native town. Here he occupied himself at first with questions of human physiology, and afterwards worked at the supplement to his father’s ‘Carpologia.’ He collected notices and extracts for a complete work on vegetable physiology. This design was never fulfilled, but it led to his taking up the question of sexuality in plants, to which he devoted twenty-five years (‘Jahresheft des Vereins für vaterl. Naturkunde in Würtemberg,’ 1852, vol. viii, p. 16).

[112] See also Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ Leipzig, 1874.

[113] The more important works referred to in this section are Robert Brown’s ‘Miscellaneous Writings,’ edited by Bennett, 1866-67; von Mohl on G. Amici, in the ‘Botanische Zeitung,’ 1863, Beilage, p. 7; Schleiden, ‘Ueber die Bildung des Lichens und Entsichung des Embryos,’ in ‘Nova Acta Academiae Leopoldinensis,’ 1839, vol. xi, Abtheilung, 1; Hofmeister, ‘Zur Uebersicht der Geschichte von der Lehre der Pflanzenbefruchtung,’ in ‘Flora’ of 1867, p. 119.

[114] The authorities for these statements are collected by Hofmeister in ‘Flora,’ 1857, p. 120, etc.

[115] W. P. Schimper, in his ‘Recherches anatomiques et morphologiques sur les Mousses’ of 1850, had made some important statements respecting the sterility of female moss-plants growing at a distance from male specimens, and proved that the presence of male plants among females that are otherwise barren renders them fruitful.

[116] See the Fragments of Aristotelian phytology in Meyer’s ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. p. 120.

[117] J. B. van Helmont was born at Brussels in 1577, and died at Villvorde near Brussels in 1644. He was a leading representative of the chemistry of his day. Kopp, in his ‘Geschichte der Chemie,’ 1843, i. p. 117, has given a full account of his life and labours.

[118] J. D. Major, who was born at Breslau in 1639, and 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 superstitious belief in the reproduction of plants and animals from their ashes, which was used to prove the resurrection of the dead.

[119] He says, ‘in mediis vasculis reticularibus,’ which when taken in connection with his general histology, must be understood to mean the bast-bundles.

[120] The date of the birth of Edme Mariotte is not known. He was a native of Burgundy, and lived in Dijon at the time of his earliest scientific labours. He was an ecclesiastic and became Prior of St. Martin sous Beaune near Dijon; he was a Member of the Academy of Sciences in Paris from its foundation in 1666, and was one of the first Frenchmen who experimented in physics and applied mathematics to them. He died in Paris in 1684 (‘Biographie Universelle’).

[121] See the Fragments of Aristotelian phytology in Meyer’s ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. pp. 119, 125.

[122] His views are known to me only from Magnol’s paper in the ‘Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences,’ 1709, and Sprengel’s ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ ii. 20. Perrault’s treatise is according to Pritzel’s ‘Thesaurus’ of the date of 1680, but is published in the ‘Œuvres divers de Perrault’ of 1721.

[123] Especially in pages 1165, 1201, 2067, 2119.

[124] Stephen Hales was born in the county of Kent in 1677 and was educated at home without showing any special ability. At the age of nineteen he became a member of Christ’s College in Cambridge, and there showed his taste for physics, mathematics, chemistry, and natural history. Nevertheless he took orders and held Church preferment in different counties. He became a Member of the Royal Society in 1718, and read before it his ‘Statical Essays.’ His ‘Hæmostatics’ appeared in 1733. He made and published other investigations and discoveries of very various kinds before his death in 1761. He was buried in his church at Riddington, which he had rebuilt at his own cost, and the Princess of Wales caused an inscription to his memory to be placed in Westminster Abbey. See his Éloge in ‘Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences,’ 1762.

[125] See Sprengel, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. 229, and Reichel’s and Bonnet’s works mentioned below.

[126] Georg Christian Reichel was born in 1727 and died in 1771. He was Professor in the University of Leipsic.

[127] Charles Bonnet, born at Geneva in 1720, sprang from a wealthy family, and was intended for the profession of the law, but gave himself up from an early age to scientific pursuits, and especially to zoology. He was afterwards a member of the great council of Geneva, and wrote various treatises on scientific subjects, psychology, and theology. He died on his properly at Genthod near Geneva in 1793. See the ‘Biographie Universelle’ and Carus, ‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ p. 526.

[128] See p. 35 of the German translation by Arnold, 1762.

[129] Henri Louis du Hamel du Monceau was born at Paris in 1700 and died in 1781. He had an estate in the Gatinais, and turned his studies in physics, chemistry, zoology, and botany to account in the composition of a number of treatises on agriculture, the management of woods and forests, naval affairs, and fisheries. He was made Member of the Academy in 1728 on presenting to it an essay on a disease then raging in the saffron-plantations, and caused by the growth of a fungus (‘Biographie Universelle’).

[130] See Kopp, ‘Geschichte der Chemie’ (1843), i. p. 306, and ‘Entwicklung der Chemie in der neucrenzeit’ (1873), p. 138.

[131] Still less was gained from an observation made by Bonnet, that leaves exposed to sun-light in water containing air show bubbles of gas on their upper surface. Bonnet expressly denied the active participation of the leaves in the phenomenon, since the same thing happens with dead leaves in water containing air.

[132] Jan Ingen-Houss, physician to the Emperor of Austria, practised first in Breda, and afterwards in London. He was born at Breda in Holland in 1730, and died near London in 1799.

[133] Jean Senebier, born at Geneva in 1742, was the son of a tradesman, and after 1765 pastor of the Evangelical Church. On his return from a visit to Paris he published his ‘Moral Tales,’ and at the suggestion of his friend Bonnet competed for a prize offered at Haarlem for an essay on the Art of Observation. He was awarded the second place in this competition. In 1769 he became pastor at Chancy, and in 1773 librarian of Geneva. At this time, among other literary labours, he translated Spallanzani’s more important writings; he also studied chemistry under Tingry, and carried out his researches into the influence of light. In 1791 he wrote an article for the ‘Encyclopaedie méthodique’ on vegetable physiology. The revolution in Geneva drove him into the Canton Vaud, and there he composed his ‘Physiologie végétale,’ in five volumes. He returned to Geneva in 1799 and took part in a new translation of the Bible. He died in that city in 1809 (‘Biographie Universelle’).

[134] Nicolas Théodore de Saussure was born at Geneva in 1767, and died there in 1845. He was the son of the famous explorer of the Alps, and assisted his father in his observations on Mont Blanc and the Col du Géant. In 1797 he wrote his treatise on carbonic acid in its relation to vegetation, a prelude to his ‘Recherches chimiques’; the latter work received great attention from the scientific world, and he was made a corresponding member of the French Institute. He was a man of literary tastes, and took part also in public affairs, being repeatedly elected to the Council of Geneva. His preference for a secluded life is said to have been the reason why he never undertook the duties of a professorship. See the supplement to the ‘Biographie Universelle’ and Poggendorf’s ‘Biographisch-litterarisches Handwörterbuch.’

[135] Henri Joachim Dutrochet, born in 1776, was a member of a noble family which belonged to the department of the Indre and lost its property during the revolution; he therefore adopted medicine as a profession, and took his degree at the Faculty of Paris in 1806. He was attached to the armies in Spain as military surgeon in 1808 and 1809; but he retired as soon as possible from practice and devoted himself in great seclusion to his physiological pursuits, living for some years in Touraine. He was made corresponding member of the Academy in 1819, and communicated his discoveries to that body. Becoming an ordinary member in 1831, he spent the winter months from that time forward in Paris. He died in 1847 after two years’ suffering from an injury to the head. Dutrochet was one of the most successful champions, in animal as well as vegetable physiology, of the modern ideas which displaced the old vitalistic school of thought after 1820. See the ‘Allgemeine Zeitung’ for 1847, p. 780.

[136] See above on page 513.

[137] Thomas Andrew Knight, President of the Horticultural Society, was born at Wormsley Grange, near Hereford, in 1758, and died in London in 1838.

[138] See ‘Arbeiten des botanischen Institutes in Würzburg,’ vol. i. p. 99.

End of Project Gutenberg's History of Botany (1530-1860), by Julius von Sachs