' the substance of the lobes.”’ 
878 
the subordinate parts of the creation 
with the higher :” so little is he apprized, 
that a real general analogy may be ren- 
dered ridiculous by carrying it too far, 
and pursuing it too minutely. 
The other parts of the quotation would 
afford ample matter for similar animad- 
version. The same confusion of ideas 
and terms prevails throughout. The 
woody or stony shell, which encloses 
the seeds of some plants, is now a true 
pericarp, and now only like one; and 
* for the escape of the seed, acted on by 
heat and moisture, and the rarefaction 
of the air within, and force of the strug- 
glingembryos endeavouring to burst their 
ecarments, it opens its marble jaws with 
a facility,’”’ and in a manner “exceeding,” 
not only a ** common,” but even Dr. 
Thornton’s “ apprehension.” 
The remainder of this comparatively 
Jong section consists chiefly of extracts 
from Grew and Bonnet, concerning the 
uses of the three coats of the arillus of 
the seed, and of the two inclosed lobes. 
He does not agree with Grew in think- 
ing, that the chief design of the arillus is 
the filtering of the water for the nourish- 
ment of the seed, though he allows that, 
if the arillus be extremely thin, the wa- 
ter pervades it: but asserts, that * it is 
a wise protection for it, as the shell of an 
ega defends the young chick, and being 
indigestible, the seed passes through the 
bodies of animals when swallowed whole, 
and being of an oleaginous nature, pre- 
vents a too copious influx of moisture 
from coming to the lobes, which are sure 
to destroy them.” Indulging that “ free- 
dom of enquiry for which the present 
age is so remarkable,” and disdaining to 
receive “ with oracular veneration the 
ipse dixit of a great name,” but at the 
‘same time “ with all due deference,”’ he 
differs also from Linneus himself, with 
respect to the propriety of calling these 
lebes cotyledons, and thinks that they 
are not analogous to the cotyledons of 
beasts, which correspond with the human 
placenta, but bear a much stronger affi- 
nity with the mamme or breasts, and 
“ form a kind of milk, which is convey- 
ed to the plantule by means of the re- 
turning vessels which descend to it from 
Asan illus- 
tration, if not a support of his opinion, he 
observes, that ‘ the mucilage of almonds 
has obtained the appellation of mi/d of 
almonds, and that the hquor procured 
from barley when it is germinated is call- 
ed sweetwort,” and adds with great gra- 
NATURAL HISTORY. 
vity, “new milk, we know, has precisely 
the same taste’’!!! Surely the sensible aps 
pearance and qualities of these prepara- 
tions are sufficient reasons for their res 
spective names, without seeking for their 
origin in the physiology of the seed lobes. 
But no absurdity or opposition to fact 
can stop the Doctor in his ardent pursuit 
of analogies. As the number of coty- 
ledons, we beg his pardon, of mamm«e 
or breasts, is different in different seeds, 
‘it is thus,” he observes, ‘¢with the parent 
animal which possesses two or more 
dugs.” This all the world knew. But 
we, at least, did not know that “ the 
number of dugs is always proportioned 
by nature to the offspring to be produc- 
ed, and that asin a litter of pigs, each 
pig always goes to its own dug’, and ne- 
ver usurps that of another, so children, 
when first born, shew the same partiality 
to one breast.” Ifthis were strictly and 
universally true, the cow must have at 
one birth at least double the young of 
the human mother; whereas both of 
them have generally only one, and the 
woman, we believe, has twins more fre- 
quently than the cow. We have con- 
sulted those who have had more experi- 
ence in these matters than ourselves, and 
are assured that new-born children do 
not shew a partiality for one breast, but, 
which may easily be explained on other 
principles, are often found to incline to 
that which they sucked last. Were we 
even to admit the Doctor’s assumption 
as a fact, to make it harmonize with his 
system, a woman should always bear 
twins, each of which should have exclu- 
sively its own breast. 
All that is said of the seminal or dis- 
similar leaves, with the exception of eight 
or ten lines, is taken verbatim from Grew 
and Bonnet : but these eight or ten lines 
demonstrate that Dr. Thornton did not 
understatid what he had read and partly 
transcribed. For though Dr. Grew ex- 
pressly and rightly says, that ‘* the dissi- 
milar leavés are the very lobes of the 
seed, divided, expanded, and thus ad- 
vanced ;” or as he afterwards explains 
it, “ are nothing’ else but the main body 
of the seed,” and relates at large how 
he came to make the discovery ; our 
author, with his usual misconception, 
says, that the seminal leaves issue from 
the seed, and- may be called appendages to 
the lobes. 
We find, as we proceed, in almost 
every page, new instances of the same 
carelessness and insufficiency. But we 
