546 T H E P H I L S O P H Y 



Every perfon who is acquainted with the fexual theory of vege- 

 tables, and with the arguments by which it is defended, muft ac- 

 knowledge, that its principal fupport is derived from the many beau- 

 tiful analogies which fubfift between plants and animals. Becaufe 

 all animals were fuppofed to propagate by fexual embraces, and be- 

 caufe plants refembled animals in their growth, their nourifliment, 

 their diflemination, and decay, it was therefore concluded, that all 

 vegetables were either male, female, or hermaphrodite ; and that 

 fexual commerce was equally neceffary for the fecundation of the 

 vesretable as of the animal tribes. 



This analogy was plaufible, and feemed to beftow a fplendid uni- 

 formity on the condu£l of Nature. But experiment, the only teft 

 of natural truths, has totally annihilated this beautiful fabrick. The 

 numberlefs fpecies of vine-fretters, of polypi, of millepedes, and of 

 infufion animalcules, multiply, without having recourfe to the com- 

 mon laws of generation. Here, then, the analogy ftops ; and, in- 

 ftead of bringing aid. to the fexualift, operates powerfully againft his 

 favourite hypothefis. If many fpecies of animals are deftitute of 

 all the endearments of love, what (hould induce us to fancy that 

 the oak or the mufliroom enjoy thefe diftinguifhed privileges ? 



The analogy, befides, is frequently contradided in the ordinary 

 oeconomy of vegetables. It is univerfally allowed, for example, 

 that, even in oviparous animals, the eggs can only be impregnated 

 while they are in a gelatinous or mere embryo ftate. When far- 

 ther advanced, their membranes, or {hells, acquire a confiftence fuf- 

 ficient to retift the male influence. But, among the vegetable tribes, 



every 



after perufing Linnaeus-s works, and many other books on the fubjeft, I was aftonifh- 

 ed to find, that this theory was fupported neither by faifts nor arguments, which could 

 produce conviftion even in the moft prejudiced minds. This difcourfe was afterwards 

 pubiiflieJ in the firft edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 



