246 A. DeCandolle on the Life and Writings of Vaucher. 



two points of view apparently so different. The functions, 

 indeed, result from the presence and from the nature of the 

 organs. If the causes differ between two groups of species, 

 the effects must also differ. Two groups may therefore be 

 recognised as well by the effects as by the causes, by the suc- 

 cessive development of the phenomena as well as by a care- 

 ful analysis of the internal organization *. M. Vaucher 5 s mode 

 of procedure, which consists in observing the physiological 

 actions of the organs, possesses the advantage of confirming, 

 by a process inverse to the ordinary one, the greater part of 

 the sections proposed by M. DeCandolle in the ' Prodromus/ 

 and by other botanists who have imitated his division of ge- 

 nera into natural sections. When M. Vaucher has distin- 

 guished two groups or types amongst the species correspond- 

 ing to one of the sections of the ' Prodromus/ which occa- 

 sionally happens, botanists should pay attention to this : more 

 probably there exist differences of structure evidenced by the 

 two modes of fecundation or of dissemination, and conse- 

 quently another section to be distinguished in the genus. In 

 this point of view the perusal of M. Vaucher 5 s book deserves 

 to accompany that of works of descriptive botany. It should 

 confirm or invalidate our classifications by indications which 

 the sight of herbaria cannot give, and which the observation 

 of living plants has not as yet sufficiently confirmed. 



The method employed by M. Vaucher will, we hope, elicit 

 further results. It will certainly be used by persons who have 

 a taste for botany, but who do not possess the necessary re 

 sources in books and herbaria to enter upon every part of the 

 science. Agriculturists residing in the country, sedentary 

 persons or invalids, who are obliged to concentrate their ob- 

 servations on the plants of their garden, will find great interest 

 in this mode of study, and will be enabled to contribute their 

 contingent of new observations to botany in general. In the 

 immense picture of nature there is as much to see in the depth 

 as on the surface. Subjects of study are not wanting, and in 

 natural history a good observation is always useful. Without 

 doubt the crowd of amateurs will always content themselves 

 with the names of plants, because inferior minds are satis- 

 fied with words in all things ; but a certain number of more 

 inquisitive men will be disposed to follow M. Vaucher over 

 the ground of his detailed physiological observations. To 

 them we will recommend the following questions, which re- 

 quire neither herbaria, nor a considerable library, nor a mi- 



* These remarks of M Alph. DeCandolle are particularly deserving of the 

 attention of the student. — Ed. 



