ON THE ANATOMY OF DREGS. 
411 
what ever be the ufe of'it, it affords a very pleafant ohjeft through the Microfcope, and. 
may, perhaps, upon further examination, prove very luciferous." 
With this extract wq must take our leave of one who has been called the 
“ father of microscopical science in this country.” We would gladly have dwelt 
more at length upon this his great v/ork, but for considerations of space. His 
book is far in advance of the age in which he lived, and holds a place in the 
world of microscopical literature, not a whit less striking than that assigned to 
the elaborate volumes of Soldani in the eighteenth century, or the ponderous 
folios of Ehrenberg in the nineteenth. 
The various papers on the “ Anatomy of Plants,” read before the Royal So¬ 
ciety by Nehemiah Grew, M.D., F.R.S., and published in a collected form in. 
1682, we need not review at length, as they have much less direct bearing upon 
the special subject of our paper than might have been expected, judging from 
the title. The author seems to have cared for anatomy only in relation to phy¬ 
siology, and his eighty-three fine folio plates are used as a sort of text whereon 
to discourse of general laws of the growth in plants, and of the supposed func¬ 
tions of their different organs. Structure rather than physiology is our present 
subject, hence Hr. Grew’s papers are almost entirely beyond our limits. How 
fully he appreciated the importance of minute anatomy as a means of gaining 
a philosophical knowledge of plants, we may gather from a sentence or two in 
his preliminary remarks. After speaking of considerations arising out of the 
study of external conditions, he says :— 
“ The next General Mean v/hich I propofe, and that a moft necel'faiy one, is Anatomy, 
For when upon the DilTedlion of FegctaHes we fee fo great a difference in them, that not 
only their Outward Figtires but alfo their Inward Structure, is fo Elegant; and in all, fo 
Various; it muft needs lead us to Think, That thefe Inward Farieties were either to no 
End ; or if they were we muft aflign to what. To imagine the firft were exceeding vain, 
as if Nature the Handmaid of Divine JJ\fdom fhould with her fine Needle and Thred, ftitch 
up fo many feveral Pieces, of fo difficult and yet fo groundlefs a work. But if for fome 
End, then either only to be looked upon, or fome other befides. If for this only, then this 
muft be fuch as in refpedl whereof. Her Work is at no time, nor in any degree fruftrate ; 
the contrary whereunto, is moft manifeft. * * * If then the Anatomy of Fegetahles be fo 
ufeful a Mean, we ought^not to ftreighten it; but to force this, as well as the reft, to its 
utmoft extent.” 
A large cumber of medicinal plants appear amongst those selected for dissec- 
tion ; amongst them not less than twenty still recognized as officinal are spoken of 
in the text, and have some portion of their structure further illustrated by magni¬ 
fied drawings. Indeed, a more interesting volume than this of Dr. Grew’s one 
need not wish. Whilst lacking the philosophic vein of Dr. Hooke, and in point 
of vigorous diction far his inferior, we can scarcely too highly estimate the care 
and patience manifested in his observations, and the systematic way in which his 
researches were conducted. It is a pleasant thing, too, in these days of doubts 
and limitations to find an author who is never at a loss for an explanation. Xo 
that his theories always help us much, but rather themselves require an expla¬ 
nation ; for instance, in a chapter on the behaviour of certain animal and 
vegetable substances with different reagents, we find the following paragraph, 
which we quote entire,—its pharmaceutical interest must stand in place of any 
direct bearing on anatomy. It is a fair sample of much that is to be found 
in the book, and an instance of the judicious mystery in which the w'orthy Doctor 
delights at times to enshroud himself :— 
“ Enffian Caftor icith Oyl of Ftriol, ftirs not. But ivitli Spirit of Nitre makcs'a coii~ 
/ideral'le huff and froth. Yet it requires time. Wherefore it feemeth. That Caftor by 
virtue of its alkaline Sulphur becomes fo good a Corredtor of the acid-alkaline Sulphur of 
Opium ; fo I take leave to call it, having fome reafons to believe it fuch.” 
2 E 2 
