300 



the authorities they have consulted gives at least a show of erudition 

 to their labours, and prevents any suggestion as to pilfering or pla- 

 giarism. — E. L. 



Casual Remarks on Morphology. 

 By James L. Drummond, M.D., &c., &c. 



That the theory of morphology is veiy ingenious, must be admitted, 

 but that it is a true one, may, I think, be equally doubted ; and as it 

 is the unquestionable privilege of every one to think and examine for 

 himself, and not be seduced, either by authority or example, to yield 

 his assent to any doctrine, of the integrity of which he is not satisfied, 

 he is at perfect liberty to express his doubts. Acting on this consi- 

 deration, I submit the following and future observations to the pages 

 of the ' Phytologist.' 



The work which I mean to refer to, is the volume on Botany pub- 

 lished under the superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of 

 Useful Knowledge, which, I believe, gives as full an account of the 

 theory as is to be found. At page 59 of that work we find the fol- 

 lowing passage : — " It may indeed appear ridiculous to assert that 

 the fruit of a peach is nothing but a peach-leaf rolled up and thick- 

 ened, an apple only the leaves in a similar state, and a grain of wheat 

 a single leaf in a state of degeneration ; and yet we expect to be able 

 to set this matter before our readers in so clear a light, as to convince 

 them that such an assertion, although startling, would be very nearly 

 true. This is called the doctrine of morphology." 



This certainly does seem extremely ridiculous ; but what is the 

 proof of a peach being only a leaf.? Why, an assumption that a car- 

 pel is nothing more, as " is very easily shewn, not only by its constant 

 tendency to revert to the form of a leaf as is seen in double roses, 

 anemones, ranunculuses, and the like, but more particularly by the 

 double cherry, in whose flowers Nature has written her laws in a lan- 

 guage so simple and positive, that none but the wilfully blind can 

 misunderstand them." — P. 60. 



Now, it has been well known, from time immemorial, that double 

 flowers are not in a natural, but in an wwnatural state, produced by 

 culture or accidental circumstances. When, then, in a double Ane- 

 mone, rose, &c., we find a leaf where a carpel ought naturally to be, 

 nothing is proved beyond the simple fact that it is so found ; but that 

 leaf cannot be a carpel changed, for it never was a carpel, though it 



