ia Obfervathns on the Ipomaa Hifplda, 



•well as animals; they increafe alfo by nutrition; and though 

 this funftion in both follows laws clifFerent in their details 

 and application, we may however aflert, that plants have in 

 general more refemblance to our fmall eels, than the latter 

 have to common animals. A plant, indeed, may be dried to 

 a certain degree, lome even may be reduced to a ftate of 

 perfeiSl deficcation, without' lofing the property of vegetatir;^ 

 as before; whereas the flighteil deficcation of animals is, in 

 general, fnfficient to deprive them of life for ever. The di- 

 verfity of thefe phaenomena is, no doubt, owing to the fini- 

 plicity of the organs of plants and of our microfcopic eels, 

 and, above all, to the facility with which the latter can be 

 dried, which prevents the corruption and dilToUition of their 

 organs ; while this diflblution is unavoidable among common 

 animals which have a very complex organization, and whole 

 humours naturally tend to corruption. This, however, in no 

 manner deftroys the great analogy which exifts between thefe 

 two fjpecies of beings ; an analogy founded in particular on 

 the circumftance of both having equal need of o.xygen for 

 their exiftence. 



XXI. Generation, that myflery, fo obfcurc in its princi- 

 ples, which belongs no lefs to plants than to animals, forms 

 the fecond kind of analogy between the two clafles of organ- 

 ized beings, and induces us to believe, that where the organs 

 are the fame, and have the fame ufes, we ought to find alfo 

 an identity of wants. Vegetables and animals have diftin<3: 

 genital parts of feparate fexes, male and female organs iu 

 different individuals, and exhibit eftbrts in thefe diffsrent 

 fexual parts to confummate the aft of fecundation. Since ^ 

 'the fexual organs, and the manner of reproducing themfelves, 

 are common to the two grand families of organized beings, 

 do they differ in fenfation ? And this difference, fo impro- 

 bable between beings fo like in other refpefts, and the only 

 one of the kind, perhaps, that can be found in nature, on 

 what is it founded ? Is it on our organs and mode of fenfa- 

 tion not being in harmony or unifon with that of plants? VV^as 

 there ever any reafon weaker, or lefs philofophical ? 



XXII. The movements of the male organs of plants 

 which perpetuate their fpecies, and the manner in vihich 

 they prepare for that grand work, feem to me to deferve par- 

 ticular confideralijn, and further refearch, I propofe to un- 

 dertake this labour, or rather to continue it; for I have al- 

 ready been employed on this objeft under various circum- 

 fiances, and I am of opinion that the fum of my obfervations is 

 fufficiently decifive to enable me to affert, with fome founda- 

 tion, that the movements by which different beings repro-. 



6 duoe 



