420 



does it resemble the adult form of fish, reptile, bird, beast, or 

 monkey. 



The principle stated is not a law of the animal kingdom. If it 

 be a law at all, it is a newly discovered one, and applies only to 

 the vegetable kingdom. 



The proposition to be established then is, that the young or 

 embryonic state of the higher orders of plants resembles the full 

 grown plants of the lower orders. The writer finds his first proof 

 in a comparison of the fovillae of a pollen grain with full grown 

 Desmidise. The points of resemblance are these : both are mi- 

 aimless motion. Surely, these resemblances are not numerous or 

 striking enough to found a law upon ; and if they were, they have 

 not the remotest bearing upon the supposed law. Admitting that 

 the fovillse "may be regarded as one of the first steps towards the 

 reproduction of plants of the highest type," yet they are not in 

 any sense a young or embryonic form of a plant. The fovillse con- 

 stitute the male element, and are homologous, not to the embryo, 

 but to the spermatozoa of animals. The supposed analogy between 

 a Protococcus and a pollen grain is open to the same criticism. 

 Nor is the correspondence between a full grown Botrydium and a 

 pollen tube of greater value. A pollen tube cannot, in any legiti- 

 mate sense, be called embryonic. The superficial resemblance of 

 a mould fungus to a stamen, is obvious enough ; but in reality no 

 analogy can exist between them. The spores of the mould are 

 embryos, and will develop, under favorable circumstances, into 

 mould again. But pollen grains are not embryos, and never, 

 under any circumstances, grow into what, by any stretch of terms, 

 can be called a new plant. Neither stamens nor pollen constitute 

 a part of the embryo ; and no analogy drawn from them can have 

 any bearing upon the laws of embryonic development. If such a 

 law as the writer claims really exist, it must be found by study- 

 ing the development of the ovule, the true homologue of the ani- 

 mal embryo. In view of such facts, all "similar analogies" and 

 all similar "proofs of the unity of design of the Creator" may be 

 easily dispensed with. 



The article proposes to extend the domain of a certain supposed 

 law of the animal kingdom, so as to include the vegetable king- 

 dom also. It has been shown, First, that no such law exists in 

 the animal kingdom ; Second, that not a single fact cited as prov- 



