Geology and Natural History. 441 
Drosera is a case in point, although the sensitiveness of the leaf 
in responding to organic rather than to inorganic matter—to such 
matters as it can feed on—was wholly eortadn to Roth, and was 
left for Darwin to demonstrate. As to Sarracenia, referring to 
the present series, we add that the source of the statement in the 
English edition of Le Maout and Decaisne’s Treatise is 2 length 
rat and may be traced back to its origin. The last volume 
f De Candolle’s Prodromus contains the omitted faredy Sarra- 
Seitnocs. = — character the careful editor added a reference 
“De causis quibus insecta in snehtieid cadunt [confer] ad 
Macbride in Pace Linn. Soe. 12, p. 48 (gall. in Rev. Hort., 1852, 
p. 123, et Robinson, |. ¢.).” This sends us to a long-overlooked 
eutrap Insects, in a letter to Sir James E. Smith, Pres. Linn. Soc., 
— James Macbride, M. D., of South Carolina ; ; read Dec. 19, 
i8t5. Ita soe that — paper, written nearly sixty years ago, 
other. De Candolle’s reference “ Robinson ba however, re- 
r f his name, 
, an r Darlingtonia, upon 
Verification by reference to the Garedner’s ‘ iioatole, throws no 
ight on the matter in han 
Dr. Macbride was a collaborator with Elliott upon the Botany of 
South Carolina and Georgia, and from e know, must have 
e died at the ‘early age of thirty- 
three, between the years 1821 ‘inl 1823, that is, between the pub- 
lication cap the first volume ae the printing io the first eo of 
most i ut who “scarcely lived 
Important contributors to its value, bu ges lar z. feghes 
to 
ous a fact, although occu ok very familiar 
oie seems to have been as econepieeey overlooked as was the 
Ms paper; doubtless, bec anists, until lately, saw in it 
only a 4 matter of idle curiosity, aa thought it a ascea 
hether Sarracenia and Dr eect vie t fies 
oT not. en ic iekas a prin Fae little seit than unre won- 
soak as an gen anomaly,—as if any member of the “organic 
orld stood alon 
