Bhilosophical Character of Decandolle, 231 



We have seen, that Decandolle was, from an early period 

 of his life, awake to this important application of botanical 

 science to purposes of utility, for the medicinal properties of 

 plants were selected by him as the subject of his Thesis, when 

 candidate for the degree of Doctor in Physic at Paris in 

 1804. 



In the year 1813, whilst still professor at Montpellier, he 

 brought out a distinct work on the same subject, pointing out 

 in it the physiological properties of each of the principal na- 

 tural families ; and of this treatise a second edition appeared 

 in 1816. 



In 1819, he published a new and corrected edition of his 

 Theorie Elementaire, in which he added, 1st, a chapter on 

 the degeneration of organs, a particular case, it is true, of their 

 abortion, but one deserving a distinct notice, from the peculiar 

 character of the effects that are numbered under it. 2f%, a 

 more full development of the principle laid down in his for- 

 mer edition, as to the effects produced on the organization of 

 plants by the adhesion of organs. The general principle had 

 indeed been clearly pointed out before, but the application of 

 it, to explain, for instance, the manner in which all the diffe- 

 rent kinds of seed-vessel result from the union of distinct car- 

 pels, was first brought forward on the present occasion, ddly. 

 The chapter was added, to which allusion has been made in 

 the former part of this sketch, vindicating the theory of abor- 

 tive organs from those objections which had been raised 

 against it, as though it militated against the idea of design, 

 and clearly pointing out the distinctions between the views 

 of their Author, and those of Lamarck. 



It was quite natural, that a mind which had obtained, even 

 in 1813, and still more completely in 1819, such clear views 

 with respect to the causes of irregularity existing in the or- 

 gans of plants, should have been carried forwards to the 

 beautiful doctrine of vegetable metamorphosis, which is only 

 a further development of the same theory. 



No doubt, indeed, Linnaeus himself had obtained a glimpse 

 of this truth, as appears from his Thesis, called the Prolepsis 

 Plantarum, sustained in the year 1760, in which, though under 

 the influence of a mistaken and fanciful Jiypothcsis, he never- 



