CO ARS ae eee i ee Pee Ee ee ee Soe 
James Logan, an early contributor to the doctrine of sex 
in plants. 
JOHN W. HARSHBERGER. 
No part of botany has so often engaged the pen of the his- 
torian as the doctrine of sexuality in plants, established by 
Rudolph Jacob Camerarius in his works collected by Johann 
Mikan, professor of botany in Prague, under the title Opus- 
cula Botanici Argumenti. Before the year 1691, and after 
that date although to a less extent, the authority of the 
ancients was still great, for in the books of that time, the 
views of Aristotle, Empedocles and Theophrastus are con- 
stantly quoted in support of one theory or another. Even 
Camerarius insists that the opinion of the Greek authors on 
natural history is not opposed to his sexual theory. A peru- 
sal of the works of Grew, Ray, and Malpighi show how loath 
these botanists were to set up their opinions against the scho- 
lasticism of the middle ages. A historical retrospect interest- 
ingly shows that progress in botany, as in every science, was 
made spasmodically, and often in an uncertain and indirect 
way did the leaders in botanical thought break away from the 
Scientific mysticism of the ancients. ; 
The path forward was a long and tortuous one. The phil- 
osophical speculations, founded deductively on the hypothet- 
ical observation of nature, could only be set aside and a true 
sclence created in one way, namely that of experiment. 
The value of Camerarius’s work lies in the fact that be for 
the first time attempted to solve the question and remove the 
difficulties which embarrassed the sexual theory by direct ex- 
Periment. To the scanty knowledge concerning the date 
palm, the terebinth and the ‘malus medici,’ as given by The- 
ophrastus, and the untrustworthy observations of Ray and 
Malpighi, Camerarius added much of value by his careful 
Mvestigations. 
Sachs, in his ‘‘History of Botany,” after a full discussion of 
the matter, giving all honor to the scientific spirit of Camera- 
"J Hames him as the founder of the doctrine of sexuality in 
Plants, and states further, that the botanists Bradley, Logan, 
Miller, and Gleditsch, were instrumental in adding much ad- 
ditional €xperimental proof. The purpose of this paper is 
