% 



VITALITY IN FEEDS AND PLANTS. 



545 



uiolely, hi een animate and inanimate na- 

 ture. But, in the same order of being, to 

 reason from a kind or kinds to other kind 

 or kinds, is not only allowable, but is al- 

 ways a good, and often the best and surest 

 mode we can adopt. 



Thus, if it be alleged, as it has been, that 

 continuous seminal reproduction engenders 

 feebleness and greater feebleness the of- 

 tener repeated, in trees ; this, as long as it 

 may be regarded as a mere hypothesis, 

 may be well combatted by analogies drawn 

 from other things in the vegetable, and I 

 think also, in the animal kingdoms. But, 

 if it should be once established, by unmis- 

 takable facts and conclusive experiments, 

 to be true; then, analogy must give place 

 to these facts, however it may be opposed 

 to them. 



These remarks have been suggested by 

 the article of Mr. Beecher, republished in 

 the October No. of the Horticulturist. I do 

 not, however, understand Mr. B. as reject- 

 ing analogy entirely from pomological in- 

 vestigations. Such is neither the main ob- 

 ject nor general drift of his argument. 

 There are other things in it requiring to be 

 noticed, as some extracts I shall make, to- 

 gether with a few comments upon them, 

 are designed to show. 



" A seed is a bud prepared for one set of 

 circumstances, and a bud is a seed prepared 

 for another set of circumstances — it is the 

 same embryo in different garments. The 

 seed has been called, therefore, a 'primary 

 bud,' the difference being one of co?idition, 

 and not of nature. 



" It is manifest, then, that the plant which 

 springs from a bud is as really a new plant, 

 as that which springs from the seed ; and 

 it is equally true, that a seed may convey 

 the weakness and disease of its parent, with 

 as much facility as a bud or graft does. If 



69 



the feebleness of a tree is general, its func- 

 tions languid, its secretions thin, then a bud 

 or graft will be feeble, — and so would be its 

 seed; or if a tree be thoroughly tainted with 

 disease, the buds would not escape, nor the 

 trees springing from them — neither would 

 its seed, or a tree springing from it. A 

 tree from a bud of the Doyenne pear is just 

 as much a new tree as one from its seed." 



We may agree with his main conclusion, 

 without adopting all the reasoning by which 

 he arrives at it. In the case of trees, when 

 a variety is once produced and exists, we 

 may believe that it is capable of being con- 

 tinued forever, by means of the bud or sci- 

 on, or indeed without them, if the first indi- 

 vidual can be guarded against all the causes 

 of disease and decay. But the reason must 

 be, that this is an exception, to which the 

 analogies of vegetable nature, out of the 

 particular kind, do not reach, and which is, 

 therefore, suce natura. 



In defining the difference between a seed 

 and a bud, as " being one of conditio?i and 

 not of nature,''^ he mystifies the subject. 

 When it is said that the difference is one of 

 " condition,'''' natiaal " condition" must be 

 intended ; and to add to that, "and not of 

 nature,'^ is absurd and contradictory ; for, 

 how can the difference in "condition' be 

 produced, except in conformity with the law 

 of nature and by some of its processes. 



Does not the unrestricted argument prove 

 more than he intends? If it be true, that a 

 bud is but a germ like a seed, only pro- 

 duced by a different development and sub- 

 ject to different laws; and that, like a seed, 

 it is capable of producing a new individual, 

 and more than a mere elongation of the be- 

 ing of the tree from which it ir; taken ; and, 

 if it be true that, by its natural constitu- 

 tion, even while it remains upon the parent, 

 it grows upon the tree as a seed in the 



