Chap. XIV. Of Change o/Species, 223 



mod agreeable to their refpective Natures, refuting 

 the reft ; and will rather ftarve, than eat what is dis- 

 agreeable to their Palate. 



In the Preface to his Vol. I. Page 10. of his Hufi 

 iandry and Gardening, he fays, ■ They feed as dir- 

 ' ferently as Horfes do from Dogs, or Dogs from 



* Fifh.' 



But what does he mean by this Inftance, Vol. I. p. 39, 

 viz.* That Thyme, and other Aromatics, being planted 

 c near an Apricot-tree, would deftroy that Tree? 5 Does 

 it not help to confirm, that every Plant does not draw 

 exactly the fame Share of Nourifhment ? 



I believe there is no need for him to give more In- 

 ftances to difprove his AfTertion than this one. His 

 Conclufion, taken by itfelf, is fofar right; viz. c That 

 ' if the Nourifhment the Earth afforded to the Thyme 



* and Apricot-tree, had been divided into Two 



* Shares, both could not have had them.' 



But this his Inftance proves, That thofe Aroma- 

 tics robb'd the Apricot-tree of fo much of its Share 

 as to ftarve it ; and that they, tho' of fo very dif- 

 ferent a Nature, did draw from the Earth the fame 

 Nourifhment which the Apricot-tree mould have 

 taken for its Support, had not the Aromatics been too 

 hard for it, in drawing it off for their own Mainte- 

 nance: 



Unlefs he believes, that all the Juices of the Aro- 

 matics were as Poifon to the Apricot -, and that, 

 according to my Experiment of the Mint, fome of 

 their Roots might difcharge fome kind of Moifture 

 in dry Weather, given them by others, that had it 

 for their Ufe ; and that tat Apricot-roots, mingling 

 with them, might imbibe enough of that Liquor, al- 

 tered fufficiently by their Veflels, to poifon and kill 

 the Tree. 



But then, where was the Tree's diftinguifhing 

 Palate ? Why did it not refufe this Juice, which was 

 fo difagreeabJe as to kill it ? And as to his Notion of 



Vege- 



