530 Reply to Mr. Main, hy the Author 



shortly attempt to exemplify ; but, previously, I must observe 

 that, although I cannot by any possibility prove that the se- 

 veral components of plants or of animals are formed, pro- 

 duced, or generated, by the juices of those plants or animals ; 

 yet I deem it to be equally impossible for you to afford 

 demonstration that they are not, cannot he, so formed. I 

 believe, whatever may heretofore have been your opinion to 

 the contrary, that our views of creation or formation, and of 

 developement and accretion, are by no means widely dissimi- 

 lar: in proof of this, I beg to refer you to the little article on 

 spur pruning, in p. 317., particularly to the last part of that 

 article in p. 319. Therein you may perceive that I draw a 

 complete distinction between creation and stimulation ; for I 

 observe that the electrical currents stimulate or excite the few 

 remaining buds of the shortened shoot ; and produce new 

 developements from embryoes, jpreorganhed, and existing in 

 those shoots. It is my earnest desire to avoid any enquiry 

 into first or creative causes. In so doing, we plunge beyond 

 our depth, are bewildered and confused : I must content my- 

 self, therefore, with observing, that, in all our researches, we 

 ought to allow that nothing is impossible. That Power which 

 started an organised being into existence might as readily 

 provide for the conversion of aliment into fresh parts or 

 organs, as decree the original construction of certain vessels 

 of nutrition and suppl}'. He might as well ordain that, by 

 the operation of certain stimuli, water should be converted 

 into fibre, cell, or tube, as that a ^e-w of these organs only 

 should exist, or at least be discernible, in the infant state of 

 the being's existence. I feel no doubt that you will go with 

 me so far ; and now, then, having placed ourselves upon 

 friendly ground, permit me to direct your attention towards 

 two very important subjects for reflection, which, though I 

 by no means assert that they demonstrate the conversion of 

 aliment into vegetable organ, yet, I think, go very far lo-r 

 wards evincing that the phenomenon is by no means im- 

 possible. 



If you refer to Keith's Physiological Botany, vol. ii. p. 378. 

 (edit, of 1816), you will perceive the author's attempt to 

 demonstrate the nature of the change in the cherry induced 

 by impregnation. In the year 1830, I perused his article 

 repeatedly : I did more ; and, calling in the assistance of the 

 quick discerning eye of one of the young botanists of my 

 family, we undertook a complete detail of experiments upon the 

 fructification of the cherry, by means of a powerful and excel- 

 lent microscope. 



Permit me, before I proceed, to state that herein, as in 



