EARLY STUDIES OF THE FLOWER 345 



like his were long in favour. Grew, Leeuwenhoek 

 and above all Camerarius had thrown out hints which 

 ought to have prompted an inquiry into the changes 

 which take place in pollen-grains lodged on a stigma ; 

 the figures of Malpighi ought to have prompted further 

 inquiry into the origin and growth of the plant-embryo, 

 but neither clue was followed up. Botanists chose 

 rather to discuss the hasty surmises of Grew and 

 Malpighi than to strain their eyes over lenses. Not 

 many years after the publication of the Discou7*s the 

 dominance of Linnsean botany cast all close study of 

 plant-physiology into the shade. During the next 

 half-century and more Needham, Adanson, Mirbel and 

 others went on discussing the aura, and the entry of 

 fertilising particles by the base of the ovule, and the 

 possibility of embryo-formation without previous fertili- 

 sation. Pyrame de Candolle^ in 1827 was not much 

 better instructed than Vaillant in 1718. At last a 

 new tide of inquiry set in ; old theories were critically 

 revised ; better microscopes were introduced ; and by 

 1846 Amici and Robert Brown had demonstrated that 

 pollen-grains send out tubes, which enter the micropyles 

 of ovules, and set up the changes which convert simple 

 egg-cells into multicellular embryos. But between 1682 

 or 1694 and 1823 hardly any progress was made towards 

 an improved knowledge of the process of fertilisation. 



Philip Miller, gardener to the Apothecaries' Society, 

 relates some experiments of his own in his Gardeners 

 and Florists' Dictionary (1724).^ The only new point 

 of interest is that having removed the anthers from 

 tulips, he saw a bee fly into the flower and deposit 



1 Organographie V^Stale, Vol. I, p. 468. 



«8ee article on ••Generation." Sachs quotes the fuller bat BOO 

 article in the Gardeners' Dictionary, 6th edition, 1752. 



