Jj^4 Kew Pubiicaiions. 



plants are truly animals. This opinion he ftrehuoufly la- 

 bours, throughout the phyfiological part of this volume, to 

 illuftrate and to prove. The feeds of plants he eafily Ihows 

 to refemble the ova of animals. He difcovers in the ftruc- 

 ture of vegetables umbilical vefTels perfctStly fimilar to thofe 

 by which embryoa and nafcent animals derive nourirtunent 

 from the parent body, or from that ftore with Avhich the wif- 

 dom of Nature involves them in the egg. He traces in the 

 vegetable itrufture, fyftcms of abforbents, glands, and blood- 

 relVels. He regards the leaves as lungs. He difcovers the 

 organs and the exercife, in thefe beings, of the moll ex- 

 quifite fenfiliility. His fatSls are partly aflembled from the 

 works of almoft all former writers on the phyfiology of ve- 

 getables, and, in part, the refults of experiments ingenioufly 

 contrived and (kilfully performed by himfelf. He fuggefts 

 many pleafing and fpeclous analogies, and' here and there 

 exhibits fome clear and accurate dcdudlions of new philofo- 

 phical truths. If we mud, with whatever reluAance, own 

 that he has not prefented to our minds fufficient evidence of 

 tliat full and perfeft fimilaritv which he fuppofes between 

 the flruClurc and functions of vegetables and thofe of ani~ 

 mals ; it is, however, at the fame tin)e certain, that he has 

 opened feveral fine veins of phyfiological refearch, and that 

 fomc of his novel pofitions, though not by himfelf fatisfac- 

 torily proved, are fuch ihat they n)ay pollibly receive com- 

 plete proof hereafter. 



In the fccond part of his work he examines the chemical 

 relations between the organifcd matter of vegetables, and the 

 nutriment from which it is, by the vegetative funftion?, 

 elaborated. He follows, with rcfpeft, the authorities of 

 Prieliky, Ingenhouz, Kirwan, and other eminent writer.^ 

 upon the apj^lication of chcmiltry to the fubjefts of garden- 

 ing and agriculture. He trulls, however, as we fhoulJ 

 judge, much too implicitly to the facls of Young, Marfliall, 

 and other authors, whofe publications on agricultural fub- 

 jcAi, however popular, and however, in fome refpcfts, ufe- 

 ful, contain few or no fachls of fuch precifion and authenti- 

 citv that a philofopher can prudently take them fur data with- 

 out tirll verifjing them by his own obfervattons aijd experi- 



