ANIMAL. 



plant enjoys this power ; whereas, if by 

 sensation we mean the faculty of perceiv- 

 ing', and of comparing ideas, it is uncer- 

 tain whether brute animals are endowed 

 with this faculty. If it should be allowed 

 to dogs, elephants, &c. whose actions 

 seem to proceed from motives similar to 

 those by which men are actuated, it must 

 be denied to many species of animals, 

 particularly to those that appear not to 

 possess the faculty of progressive motion. 

 If the sensation of an oyster, e. y. differ in 

 degree only from that of a dog, why do 

 we not ascribe the same sensation to ve- 

 getables, though in a degree still infe- 

 rior ? In examining the distinction which 

 arises from the manner of feeding, he ob- 

 serves, that animals have organs of ap- 

 prehension, by which they lay hold of 

 their food: they search for pasture, and 

 ha\ e a choice in their aliment. Hut, it is 

 alleged, that plants are under the neces- 

 sity of receiving such nourishment as the 

 soil affords them, without exerting any 

 choice in the species of their food, or in 

 the manner of acquiring it. However, if 

 we attend to the organization and action 

 of the roots and leaves, we shall soon be 

 convinced that these are the external or- 

 gans, by which vegetables arc enabled to 

 extract their food ; that the roots turn 

 aside from a vein of bad earth, or from 

 any obstacle which they meet with in 

 search of a better soil; and that they 

 split and separate their fibres in different 

 directions, and even change their form, 

 in order to procure nourishment to the 

 plant. From this investigation, he con- 

 cludes thatthere is no absolute and es- 

 sential distinction between the animal and 

 vegetable kingdoms ; but that nature pro- 

 ceeds by imperceptible degrees, from the 

 most perfect to the most imperfect ani- 

 mal, and from that to the vegetable ; and 

 that the fresh water polypus may be re- 

 garded us the last of animals, and the first 

 of plants. After examining the distinc- 

 tions, this author proceeds to state the 

 rcsci.-iblances which take place between 

 animals and vegetables. The power of 

 reproduction, he says, is common to the 

 two kingdoms, and is an analogy both 

 universal and essential. A second resem- 

 blance may be derived from the expan- 

 sion of their parts, which is likewise a 

 common property, for vegetables grow as 

 well as animals; and though some differ- 

 ence in the manner of expansion may be 

 remarked, it is neither general nor essen- 

 tial. A third resemblance results from the 

 manner of their propagation. Some ani- 

 mals, he says, are propagated in the same 



manner, and by the same means, as vegeta- 

 bles. The multiplication of the sacceroft 

 or vine-fritter, (see Aphis) which is, he 

 observes, effected without copulation, is 

 similar to that of plants by seed ; and th* 

 multiplication of the polypus by cuttings 

 resembles that of plants by slips. Hence 

 it is inferred that animals and vegetables 

 are beings of the same order, and that na- 

 ture passes from the one to the other by 

 imperceptible degrees ; since the proper- 

 ties in which they resemble one another 

 are universal and essential ; while those 

 by which they are distinguished are limit- 

 ed and partial. Dr. Watson, Bishop of 

 Landaff, has examined, with his usual 

 judgment, the distinguishing marks be- 

 tween animals and vegetables. He re- 

 jects, as insufficient, both figure and 

 spontaneous motion ; and if perception 

 be substituted in their stead, it will be 

 found to be a criterion that is, in many 

 respects, liable to exceptions. However, 

 the ingenious and learned prelate pro- 

 duces many chemical, physical, and me- 

 taphysical reasons, which serve to ren- 

 der the supposition not altogether in- 

 defensible, that vegetables are endowed 

 with the faculty of perception. Dr. Per- 

 cival, likewise, in a paper read before the 

 Literary and Philosophical Socieu of 

 Manchester, produces several arguments 

 to evince the perceptive powerof vegeta- 

 bles. From the reasoning adduced by 

 both these ingenious writers, of which a 

 more particular account will be given in 

 the sequel of this work (see PLAJTTS and 

 VKCKTABI.KS) ; those who duly advert 

 to it will, we conceive, incline to the opi- 

 nion, that plants are not altoi 

 tute of perception. Hut on a question 

 that has perplexed and divided the most 

 ingenious and inquisitive naturalists, it is 

 very difficult to decide. If we extend to 

 the vegetable kingdom that kind of vita- 

 lity with which sensation and e;ijo\ment 

 are connected, there "ill remain no dis- 

 cernible boundary between this and thr 

 animal kingdom ; and that which has 

 IK-CM considered as the distinctive charac- 

 teristic of animals, and by which t! 

 separated from vegetables, will be abolish- 

 ed. A\ e shall now add, that the princi- 

 ple of self-preservation belongs to all ani- 

 mals ; and it has been argued, that this 

 principle is the true characteristic of ani- 

 mal life, and that it is unquestionably a 

 consequence of sensation. There is no 

 animal, when apprehensive of danger, 

 that does not put itself into a posture of 

 defence. A muscle, when it is touched, 

 immediately shuts its shell ; and as this 



