IN FLOWERING PLANTS. 141 
Mr. Lindley while allowing that there is nothing positive 
to oppose to the precise and most complete statements of 
Mr. Brown, except the indirect observations of Mr. Bauer, 
still thinks that the mode of fertilization in Orchidez is far 
from being determined. For the arguments against, see Mr. 
Brown's remarks. 
The few arguments he brings forward are, I think, unte- 
nable. For with reference to the possibility of there being 
two modes of fertilization, it is more consonant to sound 
philosophy to believe that nature always follows one settled 
plan; that exceptions to general rules almost always con- 
firm, rather than weaken them. And with regard to the 
difficulty of bringing the two organs into contact which Mr. 
Lindley thus expresses, ** by so placing the anther that it is 
next to impossible for the pollen to touch the stigma un- 
til the energy of the former is expended,”* it will I think be 
allowed, that the energy of the pollen is as persistent as that 
of any other parts of plants, except the seed, and perhaps 
much more so. 
The family in which above all others the tubes have been 
traced into the ovule, is Asclepiadez. And on this order both 
Mr. Brown and M. Brongniart appear to have been simultane- 
ously employed: but neither at the same period succeeded 
in tracing them into the ovula, although Mr. Brown had trac- 
ed them to the placenta, See Introduct. p. 284. 
But I do not agree with Mr. Lindley when he incorpo- 
rates the statements of these two authorities, and for this 
reason, that they differ in two or three points of primary im- 
portance,—Ist. Mr. Brown states, that in all cases in which 
fecundation has taken place, the mass has changed its posi- 
tion, being placed in the fissure between two anthers, while M. 
Brongniart states, that there has been no change of position, 
the mass consequently remaining in the cell of the anther. 
* Introduct. Second, Ed. p. 285. 
