SECT. IV. OBJECTIONS. 



only in fact for the establishment of the principle, 

 that nature in extraordinary cases may have recourse 

 to extraordinary means. But this is a concession 

 which Mr. Smellie is by no means inclined to 

 make, not admitting the existence of sexes, or the 

 efficacy of the pollen, in any case whatever ; to coun- 

 tenance which opposition one would think he must 

 have been able to produce a variety of the most de- 

 licate and decisive experiments that ever were made 

 on the subject, and that they had all succeeded to 

 his wish. But what must be the surprise and disap- 

 pointment of the reader when he is informed that 

 all Mr. Smellie's dogmatism and pertinacity rests 

 only on the very slender and narrow foundation of 

 one poor experiment made upon the Lychnis 

 dioica, which, by the by, is not his own experiment 

 after all. 



But in order to account for the very sweeping 

 and decided conclusion of Mr. Smellie, it is to be 

 recollected that he began his reasonings on the sub- 

 ject with a wishthatthe doctrineof vegetable sexuality 

 might prove to be false, as well as with the hope of 

 showing some little ingenuity in refuting a doctrine 

 that was supported by the great Linnaeus, and thus 

 avowedly contending for victory rather than for truth. 

 Like Spallanzani he begins by complaining of the in- 

 sufficiency of the arguments drawn from analogy, by 

 which the doctrine of the sexes had been occasion^ 

 ally illustrated ; and, like Spallanzani also, is guilty 

 of committing the very identical sin he condemns, 



z 2 



