^5i5 OF THE BARBERRY. 



me to that effect. It is still more wonderful that the 

 celebrated Bonnet, as mentioned in Senebier's Physiolo- 

 gie Vegetale, v. 5. 105, should have observed this phoe- 

 nomenon in the Barberry so very inaccurately as to com- 

 pare it to the relaxation of a spring, and that the ingen- 

 ious Senebier himself, in quoting me, p. 94, for having 

 ascertained the lower part only of each filament to be ir- 

 ritable, should express himself as follows : — " It has not 

 yet been proved that the movement of the stamens is at- 

 tended with the contraction of the filaments ; which 

 nevertheless was the first proof necessary to have been 

 given in order to ascertain their irritability ; it is not 

 even yet well known which is the irritable part of the 

 filaments, and whether it be only their base, as Smith 

 has had the address to discover." In answer to which I 

 need only request any one to read the above account, or 

 the more ample detail in my original paper, and, above 

 all> to examine a Barberry-blossom for himself ; and if 

 any doubts remain concerning the existence of vegetable 

 irritability, let him read Senebier's whole chapter intend- 

 ed to disprove it, where that candid philosopher, while 

 he expresses his own doubts, has brought together every 

 thing in its favour. Among the whole of his facts noth- 

 ing is more decisive than the remarks of Coulomb and 

 Van Marumonthe Euphorbia^ whose milky juices flow 

 so copiously from a wound, in consequence of the evi- 

 dent irritability of their vessels ; but when the life of 

 the plant is destroyed by electricity, all the flowing is at 

 an end. It is superfluous to add any thing on this sub- 

 ject, and I return to that of the impregnation of flowers. 



