39^ History of the Sexual Theory. [BOOK HI. 



flower with those of Tournefort, who was a decided opponent 

 of the doctrine of sexuality in plants. The parts of the 

 flower are hastily described, figures are given of some forms 

 of pollen-grains, and the notion that the style is a tube re- 

 ceives some apparent confirmation from the experiment of 

 drawing water through the style of a lily. The view that the 

 pollen is not an excrement, as Tournefort and Malpighi had 

 maintained, is defended partly by arguments which prove 

 nothing, for instance, by the erroneous assertion that the 

 anthers are always so disposed that the extremity of the pistil 

 must necessarily receive their dust. The only proof offered 

 for the fact that seeds are infertile if deprived of the co- 

 operation of the pollen, is a very hasty account of some ex- 

 periments with maize and Mercurialis. The result of these 

 experiments, as well as some other remarks of Geoffroy, re- 

 mind us of the text of Camerarius' letter to an extent which 

 mere accident will hardly account for. If Geoffroy really 

 made these experiments, which is open to some doubt, yet 

 they were made fifteen years later than those of Camerarius, 

 who did make the same experiments among others and has 

 described them better. Geoffroy next endeavours to show 

 how the pollen effects the fertilisation, and offers two views on 

 the subject ; first, that the dust contains much sulphur and is 

 decomposed on the pistil, the more subtle parts forcing their 

 way into the ovary, where they set up a fermentation and 

 cause the formation of the embryo ; the second view is, that 

 the pollen-grains already contain the embryos, which find their 

 way into the seeds and are there hatched. This is Morland's 

 notion, who however is not mentioned. Geoffroy considers 

 the latter to be the more probable hypothesis, chiefly because 

 no embryo is found in the ovule before fertilisation, and also 

 because the seed of the bean has an orifice (the micropyle) ; 

 it does not occur to him that these facts speak as much for the 

 first as for the second view. 



Enough has been produced to show that Morland and 



