[ 49 8 3 
Corol. 2d, That what from the analogy of the 
other plants is called the feed, of the Fungi cannot 
properly be called feed. 
Corol. 3d, That there mud be fuch a fimilarity 
in all the parts of the Fungi, that it is indifferent 
whether any part be placed above or below, whether 
it communicates or receives nourifhment. 
Laftly, That every Fungus, according to his hypo- 
thecs, is contained in an entire and perfect Cate from 
the beginning, in every egg, or, as it is called, its 
feed, and wants nothing but evolution, to imbibe the 
neceffary juices. 
Thefe are the corollaries our author draws; and, 
for a farther confirmation of his do&rine, refers to a 
treatife exprefly written on this fubjedt, in which, he 
fays, he has made ufe of fuch ftrong arguments, that 
it would be quite needlefs to add' any thing more in 
this place. Had I an opportunity of perufing this 
treatife, it is poffible I might find reafon to agree 
with him ; but his arguments muff be quite of an- 
other nature, than what appears here, to make me 
think thefe plants exempt from the common laws of 
vegetables. 
For, as to the fuppofed difference in regard to rife, 
evolution, increment, and propagation, which is his 
frft corollary, it has been considered already in part, 
and will be more fully confidered, when 1 come to 
his third corollary. 
As to the lecond, viz. That what, from analogy, 
is called the feed, of the Fungi cannot properly be 
called feed. I muff own, I cannot fee the lead foun- 
dation for any diftin&ion between the feeds and eggs 
of plants, the latter of which terms, he thinks, ought 
