

20 DK. F. DA.BWIN 0>~ THE 



■ 



Faivre, of Lyons, points out that the problem is at present 

 rather stated than solved. 



Ch. Naudin considers that there is far from being any proof 

 that the substances dissolved by the secretion of the leaves are 

 absorbed or assimilated. He states that digestion is assumed to 

 occur without proof; and it is a matter of doubt whether this 



proof will ever be obtained. 



P. Duchartre finds it impossible to admit that the capture 

 of insects serves directly for the nourishment of the plant, be- 

 cause it is contrary to our present knowledge that leaves should 

 be able to absorb liquids. He points out that no one has demon- 

 strated that animal food supplied to the leaves produces any 

 appreciable effect on the plant. 



Parlatore, of Florence, admits that the captured insects are 

 dissolved but not absorbed ; he remarks that such absorption has 

 not been proved to take place. 



Bechamp, who goes into the question from the point of 

 view of a chemist, considers that " scientifiquement c'est faire un 

 epouvantable cercle vicieux que de supposer des vegetaux carni- 

 vores. " Because animals depend ultimately on vegetables for 

 food, therefore no vegetables can be supported by animals. M. 

 Bechamp concludes : u L'idee de plantes carnivores est done le 

 produit d'une illusion le renversement des demonstrations les 

 mieux fondees de la science." 



The most recent remarks which I have been able to find on 

 this subject are in a highly interesting memoir by W. Pfeffer, 

 of Basel*. He considers it to be doubful whether the capture of 

 insects is any definite advantage to the plants in a state of nature. 

 He remarks that he has himself observed the thriving growth 

 from winter-buds of Drosera-iplants to which no animal food is 

 given. 



In the periodical above quoted (p. 112) are some valuable re- 

 marks by Cohn. He points out that insectivorous plants are 

 often cultivated in rich soil, whereas in nature they grow in 

 poor peaty land. Therefore under culture they obtain the nitro- 

 gen by their roots, for which in a state of nature they depend on 

 their leaves. Pfeffer, loc. cit. p. 988, insists that the smallness of 

 the roots of many insect-catching plants is not a fair argument in 

 favour of the view that the chief nitrogenous supply comes from 



* Landwirtbschaftliche Jahrbucher, 1877, p. 98f>. 



