282 The American Naturalist. [April, 



cuses again form, preventing farther sinking. In case the 

 wood is partly dried, instead of a drop appearing below, the 

 water at the top sinks in without farther visible result either 

 at once or slowly. In this case there are no continuous water 

 streams as before, they are broken by internal meniscusee 

 forming the chain. 



Contrast now the methods of reasoning used in the two 

 cases. It is admitted on both sides that all the mechanical 

 forces here in play whose action we understand, are not suf- 

 ficient to cause the water to ascend higher than about 30 feet. 

 Sachs, therefore, affirms the presence of a quality in the 

 micella3 of the wood, which if it existed there would account 

 for the water rising. There is no other proof that this quality 

 exists than simply this fact. This statement, perhaps, should 

 be modified by adding, there is no proof which is considered 



On the other hand, the theo 





* taugh 



stops short of the assumption 



of 1 



l mech 



known mechanical forces can b< 



■ loll 



nd acti 



sufficient to explain the result. 



As 



there i* 



of whose manner of action we ar 



e ign 



orant. i 



of living matter, he assumes 



this 



to he 



accomplishes that part of the res 



ult 1 



lot reae 



causes. This inference is supp 



■ortei 



1 by tl 



the living cells in connection < 



with 



the di 



holding the water. For exam.pl 



e th< 



3 presei 



chym around those ducts whicl 



i are 



otherv 



tion with the medullary rays. 







In regard to the experiment < 



.I Bl 



irtig b( 



may be of interest to those not 





liar wit 



...m'-'i ''x,a 'n' ",'',;, 'nv^vl,,',' 1 [ 



:::: 



■ •IXn 



therefore there is the imVrruptio 



l' K tr 



is 



in the otherwise continuous col 



umn 



. 



Schwendener's view all that is 



prov< 



m by 1 



