that were made in this subject between 1840 and 1860, it should be
mentioned that new cases of movement in plants had been discovered.
Dutrochet observed that the stem in the embryo of Viscum is negatively
heliotropic, and had carefully studied its behaviour; he opposed the
old notion that the geotropic downward curvature is peculiar to main
roots, and that that is the reason why they are in ‘polar’ opposition
to the stem, by pointing to the shoots of the rhizomes of Sagittaria,
Sparganium, Typha, and other plants, which at least when young curve
downwards with some force; and on extending Knight’s experiment with
a rotating wheel he found that the leaves also exhibit a peculiar
geotropism. These observations and some new examples of periodical
movement and movements of irritability were connected without
difficulty with the forms of movement that had been long known in the
vegetable kingdom, and contributed to correct the views that had been
entertained respecting them. But this was not the case for a time with
two phenomena which also fall within the province of phytodynamics,
namely normal growth and the movements of the protoplasm, which exhibit
the two opposite extremes, so to speak, of the facts connected with
movement. Various measurements had been made of the growth of plants
since the beginning of the century, and attempts had been made to
establish its dependence on light and heat, but without any great
success. Treviranus had rediscovered the movements of the protoplasm
in 1811 in Nitella. Similar movements were repeatedly pointed out by
Amici, Meyen, and Schleiden in the cells of higher plants, but they
were taken for streamings of the cell-sap; it was still unknown that
all these were movements of the same organised substance, which moves
independently in water in the form of swarmspores. These phenomena,
especially the movements of swarmspores, were noticed and studied
separately between 1830 and 1840, but no one thought of bringing
both these movements and the mechanical laws of normal growth into
connection with the phenomena which had usually been treated together
under the head of movements in the vegetable kingdom. De Candolle and
Meyen did not mention them in this connection in their ‘Compendia’ of
1835 and 1839; Meyen on the contrary discussed the ‘circulation of the
cell-juice’ with nutrition, and the movement of swarmspores with the
propagation of Algae. The two writers just named, like Du Hamel before
them, divided into two main groups the movements in the vegetable
kingdom which had been long known and were usually put together, and
treated of geotropic and heliotropic curvatures and the movements of
tendrils and climbing plants under the head of direction of plants,
and the periodical movements and movements connected with irritability
under that of movements, though they gave no reasons for this
classification; it rested evidently on an indistinct feeling outrunning
clear perception—that in the one they were dealing with growing parts
of plants, in the other with parts which had ceased to grow. Dutrochet
made no such distinction, but he was the only one among the chief
representatives of vegetable physiology between 1830 and 1840 who had
thoroughly adopted the mechanical view of phytodynamical phenomena.
We have said that Treviranus was a warm adherent of the theory of
vital force. De Candolle and Meyen, it is true, endeavoured to explain
each separate movement if possible by mechanical laws, but in their
more general speculations they readily lapsed into antiquated views;
thus De Candolle speaks of the sensitiveness of Mimosa as a case of
extreme ‘excitability,’ and Roeper, in accordance with his other views,
translated De Candolle’s expression, autonomous movements, by the term
‘voluntary’ movements. The movements he is speaking of are those of
Hedysarum gyrans, and Meyen also terms them ‘voluntary’ movements,
and ranks them with those of Oscillatoria. That he was influenced
in this by a dim reminiscence of the old vegetable soul is shown by
the heading, ‘Of movements and sensation in plants,’ placed over the
section of his work in which the expression occurs; and in the last
chapter of this section, he attributes some kind of sensation to plants
on account of the evident marks of design in their movements, though he
veils his meaning in obscure and tortuous phrases.
5. The mists of the nature-philosophy and the vital force disappeared
from the phytodynamical province of botanical science after the year
1840. The methodical research of inductive science, which had still
to contend with them up to that time, was once more acknowledged as
the supreme guide and ruler. A few stray dissentients were still
to be found, but the general voice was against them. There was an
eager desire for exact investigation of the facts, in order to lay
a firmer foundation for future theory. But no conclusive results,
no such entirely new points of view were gained before 1860, as
were established during the same time in phytotomy, morphology, and
systematic botany. To these subjects the most eminent enquirers applied
their best powers almost exclusively, while phytodynamics vanished from
the field of view of the generality of botanists, and no one made them
the object of the comprehensive, intense, and effectual study, which
Dutrochet had previously devoted to them. At the same time his example
was not without a powerful effect. The working of endosmose was further
investigated and treated as a part of molecular physics. Greater
freedom was thus gained in the mechanical treatment of phytodynamical
questions, and a firmer basis secured by aid of the advances which were
being at the same time made in phytotomy. But with the exception of
Brucke’s essay on Mimosa (1848), the works produced during this period
were chiefly devoted to the critical examination of the writings of
previous observers, and whatever appeared that was new and positive
remained incomplete till after the date at which this history ends.
Under these circumstances we must be content to indicate briefly the
more important of the new discoveries and of the efforts made at this
time to advance the theory of the subject.
Several observers occupied themselves soon after 1840 with the
influence of light on the growing parts of plants. Payer maintained in
1843 that the radicles of various Phanerogams turn from the light, and
a controversy arose between him and Dutrochet on the point, in which
Durand took part in 1845, but no definite conclusion was arrived at
even as regards the certainty of the fact. The beautiful discovery of
Schmitz in 1843, that the Rhizomorphs grow more slowly in the light
than in the dark, and arc at the same time negatively heliotropic,
might have proved much more important; but the theoretical value of
this fact has till quite recently been entirely misconstrued. Sebastian
Poggioli had discovered in 1817 that highly refringent rays of light
were more heliotropically active, and the fact was confirmed by Payer
in 1842; but Dutrochet in 1843 maintained, and incorrectly, that it is
the brightness of the light, and not its refrangibility, which is the
determining factor. Zantedeschi found in 1843 that red, orange, and
yellow light are heliotropically inactive. Gardner on the contrary in
1844, and Guillemain in 1857, came with the help of the spectrum to
the conclusion that all its rays are heliotropically active, and the
question long remained hampered by these contradictory statements, till
it was taken up again in 1864. This was a similar case to that of the
question of the effect of variegated light on the elimination of oxygen
and the formation of chlorophyll. Daubeny had given attention to the
subject in 1836 and inclined to the view, that it was the brightness
of the light rather than its refrangibility which was the important
point; and Draper’s observation, made with the spectrum in 1844, that
the elimination of oxygen reaches its maximum in yellow light and
decreases on each side of it, was generally understood as though it
was a question only of the brightness of the light. It is only within
recent times that this view has been abandoned, and in the same way all
the investigations which have just been mentioned were not settled till
after 1860, and were scarcely turned to any theoretical account.
The bright point in the history of phytodynamics at this time is
Brücke’s treatise in 1848 on the movements of the leaves in Mimosa,
not only on account of the very important results which it records,
but still more for the exactness of its method which has made it a
model of research in these subjects. He first established the essential
difference between the periodical nocturnal position of the leaves of
Mimosa and the position which they assume when irritated, and showed
that the former is connected with an increase in turgidity, the latter
with relaxation; he showed further that if the upper half of the
organ is removed, the periodical movements and the irritability both
continue. Of great importance to the theory was the clear account
given of the tension which is produced between the vascular bundle and
the turgescent layer of parenchyma, and the reference of the periodic
movements and of those of irritation to the movements of water in the
antagonistic masses of parenchyma. The details were still imperfect,
but one great advantage was secured, namely, the doing away with the
mysticism associated with the idea of irritability, from which even von
Mohl was not entirely free.
A full enquiry into the downward curvature of roots, published by
Wigand in 1854, deserves mention, because it threw some light on the
theory of the strictly mechanical questions connected with a subject
which had been for some time neglected, and because, while containing
other instructive matter, it refuted the theory, founded on endosmose
and on the structure of tissue, which had been suggested by Dutrochet
and adopted by von Mohl, since it showed that one-celled organs also
exhibit geotropic curvatures. The great theoretical importance of the
fact that all the various phytodynamical phenomena, with the exception
of movements of irritability, are manifested in one-celled organs, was
not fully understood till after 1860.
It has been already observed, that no theoretical result was obtained
from the discovery of circulation in cells made by Corti in 1772, and
repeated by Treviranus in 1811. The same may also be really said of the
later observations of Amici, Meyen, and Schleiden, which went to show
that such movements occur very generally in vegetable cells. In like
manner the movements of swarmspores, of which a considerable number
of instances had been observed before 1840, were rather the subject
of astonishment than of scientific consideration. They could not in
fact find their place in the general system until Nägeli and von Mohl
discovered in 1846, that it is in the protoplasm that the so-called
movement of the cell-sap takes place, and Alexander Braun made it known
in 1848 that the swarmspores are naked masses of protoplasm, and indeed
true vegetable cells. A new substratum for the movements in plants,
and one of the simplest kind, was thus obtained; and Nägeli attempted
in 1849 a mechanical explanation of the movements of swarmspores, while
in 1859 De Bary exhibited in the Myxomycetes most instructive examples
of such movements. If Nägeli failed in his attempt, yet it seemed
possible that the protoplasm had an important share in the production
of all phytodynamic phenomena, and the idea appeared capable of a very
wide application when Unger pointed out in 1855 the resemblance between
vegetable and animal protoplasm. It is true that not one of these
later observations led to any conclusive results till after 1860; but
that the whole subject of phytodynamics had made considerable advance
as early as 1850 is apparent from the account given of it by von Mohl
in his ‘Vegetabilische Zelle’ of 1851, and by Unger in his ‘Lehrbuch
der Anatomie und Physiologie der Pflanzen’ of 1855. Von Mohl chiefly
exposes the unsatisfactory nature of the attempts that had been made to
explain the phenomena; Unger, on the other hand, shows how much that is
fundamentally important had been already established.
The mechanics of growth had not been included by former writers among
the phenomena of phytodynamics, nor was it so included by either Unger
or von Mohl. It seemed to be supposed that there was a fundamental
difference between growth and other movements in the vegetable
kingdom, and this idea was entertained even in the most recent times.
From the time of Mariotte and Hales no one had made the mechanical
laws of growth the subject of special investigation or theoretical
consideration; yet some observations had been made on the formal
relations of growth and its dependence on external influences. Ohlert
(1837) was the first after Du Hamel who studied the distribution of
growth in the root; Cotta in 1806, Chr. F. Meyer in 1808, Cassini in
1821, Steinheil and others made measurements in connection with the
same question in the stem, but only with the result of showing that the
distribution of growth at the internodes may vary very greatly, and
even Münter’s measurements in growing internodes in 1841 and 1843, and
Grisebach’s in 1843 led to no appreciable result, because the observers
neglected to apply the figures obtained to the theory of the subject.
It seemed to be generally supposed that it was enough simply to write
down the measurements in figures, and that a theoretical result would
spring into being of itself; on the contrary the real scientific work
begins after the figures are obtained. The same cause prevented the
observations which have yet to be mentioned from producing real fruit.
The influence of the variability of the temperature of the air[138],
and of the alternation of daylight and darkness on the longitudinal
growth of internodes and leaves after they have emerged from the
bud-condition, had often been investigated; Christian Jacob Trew
published in 1727 long-continued daily measurements on the flowering
stem of Agave Americana in conjunction with observations on temperature
and weather; a hundred years later similar observations were made by
Ernst Meyer in 1827, by Mulder in 1829, and by Van der Hopp and De
Vriese in 1847 and 1848; but Harting in 1842 and Caspary in 1856 were
the first who went at all deeply into the questions involved. These
observations, some of which were carefully made, led to no further
result than the discovery of the fact, which Münter indicated and
Harting applied to theoretical purposes but which no one else thought
worthy of attention, namely that the rate of growth increases at first
and independently of external causes, till it reaches a maximum, and
then decreases till at length it comes to an end; they did not even
establish a really practical method of observation. Scarcely two
observers arrived at the same result, because the questions respecting
the relations of growth in length to temperature and light had not
been clearly and distinctly put. Communications were published in the
periodicals, which simply tabled long-continued measurements of the
longitudinal growth of parts of plants, and gave an idea of constant
irregularity of growth, without suggesting any explanation of the
causes which produced it; so indistinct were the ideas of observers
on these subjects even after 1850, that the majority of them proposed
to themselves the question, what difference there is between growth
by day and by night; it did not occur to them that day and night
are not simple forces of nature, but different and very variable
complications of external conditions of growth, such as temperature,
light and moisture, and that such a mode of putting the question could
not possibly lead to the discovery of the relations established by
law, so long as the several factors were unknown which are included in
the conceptions of day and night. Harting’s essay of 1842 is superior
to those above mentioned, inasmuch as he distinctly endeavoured to
obtain from his measurements some definite propositions that might
be applied to the theory of the subject, and especially to give a
mathematical expression to the dependence of growth on temperature,
but his success in this particular point was not great. The idea, that
there must be a simple arithmetical relation to be discovered between
growth and temperature, had been suggested by Adanson in the previous
century, and it found many supporters in the period between 1840 and
1860: but it should be observed that the term growth was used in a
loose and popular sense to sum up all the phenomena of vegetation
in one expression. Adanson had supposed that the time occupied in
the unfolding of the bud was determined by the sum of the degrees
of the mean daily temperature, reckoned from the beginning of the
year; Senebier, and at a later time De Candolle, declared against the
existence of any such relation, but a similar idea was not only very
generally entertained after 1840, but it even came to be treated as a
probable natural law. Boussingault had pointed out that in the case
of cultivated plants in Europe and America, if the whole period of
vegetation expressed in days is multiplied by the mean temperature of
the same period, the products do not deviate widely from one another
in the same species. It was thereupon assumed that these deviations
are due to incorrect observation, and that such a constant product of
the period of vegetation and the mean temperature will be found in
every species. This product then received the unmeaning appellation
of the sum of the temperature. If such a relation between vegetation
and temperature really exists, it would necessarily follow that other
things, such as light, moisture, the soil, &c., have no influence at
all on the period of vegetation, not to speak of those internal causes
which help to complicate the simplest processes of growth. It is
unnecessary to expose in this place the absurdities involved in this
idea of the sum of the temperature; the needful remarks will be found
in the ‘Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Botanik’ of 1860, i. p. 370.
It is a remarkable fact however that such monstrous reasoning should
have been able to prejudice science in various ways even later than the
year 1860. A new science was actually invented and called Phaenology,
which accumulated thousands and thousands of figures, in order to
discover the sum of the temperature for every plant, and as this
crude empiricism showed that the simple multiplication of the period
of vegetation by the temperature gave no constant result, the square
of the temperature was tried and other tricks of arithmetic adopted.
Though Alphonse de Candolle as early as 1850 expressed well-founded
objections to the whole of this method of treating the subject, in
which the mean temperature played much too important a part, yet he
was so far unable to keep clear of the prevailing ideas, that he
thought he could express the effect of light by an equivalent number
of degrees of temperature, and so save the supposed law of temperature
in vegetation. To this idea may be traced his work on the geography of
plants, published in two volumes in 1855, which however contains a rich
treasure of personal experience and knowledge of the works of other
writers.
It appears then that scarcely any point of fundamental importance in
phytodynamics was cleared up before the period at which this history
closes; it was not till after that date that these questions began to
be studied from new points of view, and they are at the present time
still under discussion.
INDEX.
Adanson, 66, 116, 545, 561.
Aepinus, 257.
Agardh, 143, 160, 205, 352.
Albertus Magnus, 14.
Aldrovandi, 18.
Alpino, 380.
Alston, 402.
Amici, 223, 284, 371, 432, 434, 558.
Ammann, 39.
Aristotle, 4, 6, 13, 16, 43, 51, 219, 376, 450.
Astruc, 543.
Bachmann, 7, 39, 63, 74-76, 83, 101.
Baisse (de la Baisse), 483.
Banks, 139.
Bartling, 144, 145.
Batsch, 125, 137, 143.
Bauhin, Kaspar, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 24-26, 33, 39, 64, 80, 100,
115.
Bazin, 543.
Beale, 472.
Berkeley, 205.
Bernhardi, 109, 225, 256, 263-266, 347.
Bischoff, 161, 198, 207, 438, 439.
Blair, Patrick, 391.
Bock, Hieronymus, 3, 13, 14, 19, 24, 27, 28.
Boehmer, 248, 483.
Boerhaave, 78.
Bonnet, 163, 247, 486-488, 541.
Borelli, 536.
Bornet, 210, 443.
Boussingault, 373, 449, 531, 561.
Bradley, 391, 406.
Braun, A., 162, 165, 169, 170-181, 184, 208, 312, 314, 334, 336, 442,
558.
Bravais, 169.
Brisseau-Mirbel, 198, 224, 226, 250, 256, 259, 261, 262, 272-275, 284,
307, 311, 321.
Brongniart, Adolph, 147, 321, 432, 436.
Brown, Robert, 110, 112, 122, 139-144, 155, 151, 227, 323, 433.
Brücke, 339, 536, 557.
Brunfels, 3, 5, 13, 14.
Brunn, 255.
Buffon, 89.
Burckhard, 83, 391, 397.
Burnett, 550.
Calandrini, 486.
Camerarius, Rud. Jak., 60, 77, 81, 87, 361, 376, 385-390, 406.
Candolle, (_see_ De Candolle).
Caspary, 560.
Cassini, 559.
Cesalpino, Andrea, 5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 23, 37, 40, 42-57, 61, 63, 80,
81, 103, 125, 163, 219, 220, 450.
Cessati, 213.
Choulant, 19.
Clusius (_see_ de l’Écluse).
Cohn, 209, 213, 442.
Comparetti, 249, 263, 282.
Corda, 184, 205.
Cordus, Valerius, 29, 536.
Cornulus, Jakob, 537.
Corti, 314, 513, 545, 558.
Cotta, 506, 559.
Covolo, dal, 410, 545.
Cramer, Karl, 203.
Dalechamps, 29, 30.
Darwin, Chas., 11, 12, 49, 53, 152, 169, 180, 183, 351, 431.
Daubeny, 557.
De Bary, 210, 213-215, 292, 314, 318, 339, 372, 443, 559.
Decaisne, 442.
De Candolle, Alphonse, 562.
De Candolle, Pyrame, 9, 71, 92, 110, 112, 122, 126-139, 307, 484, 515,
537, 554, 555, 561.
De la Baisse, 483.
De Lamarck, 127.
De l’Écluse, 13, 18, 19, 29-31, 55.
De la Hire, 543.
De l’Obel, 3, 6, 13, 17, 23, 26, 32, 35, 58, 64, 67.
Desfontaines, 136, 293, 307.
De Vriese, 508, 560.
Dillenius (Dillen), 76, 211, 437.
Dioscorides, 3, 4, 13, 15, 28, 34.
Dippel, 343.
Dodart, 538, 547.
Dodoens (Dodonaeus), 13, 18, 22, 29, 30.
Draper, 557.
Du Hamel du Monceau, 89, 247, 368, 488-491, 542-545, 559.
Du Petit-Thouars, 137, 489.
Durand, 556.
Dutrochet, 212, 370, 509-514, 550, 552, 553.
Ehrenberg, 208, 211, 322, 354, 438.
Eichler, 350.
Endlicher, 9, 110, 146, 333.
Erlach, 354.
Fabri, 403.
Fischer, 509.
Fogel, 59.
Frank, 39, 343.
Fries, Elias, 10, 111, 153, 205.
Fuchs, 3, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 24.
Fürnrohr, 192.
Gärtner, Karl Friedrich, 370, 421, 427-430.
Gärtner, Joseph, 23, 110, 122-125, 207, 413.
Galen, 3, 15.
Garcias del Huerto, 536.
Gardner, 557.
Gaudichand, 293.
Geoffrey, 391, 395.
Gesner, Konrad, 18, 20, 29, 379.
Ghini, Luca, 18.
Girou de Bouzareingue, 422, 426.
Giseke, 137.
Gleditsch, 211, 212, 391, 393.
Gleichen-Russworm, 247, 249, 263 404, 431.
Goeppert, 184, 370, 507.
Goethe, 62, 144, 156-160, 263, 390.
Grew, Nehemiah, 69, 89, 93, 97, 221, 222, 223, 225, 231, 232, 234,
239-244, 263, 382-385, 551.
Grischow, 506.
Grisebach, 560.
Guillemain, 557.
Haartman, 400.
Hales, 89, 224, 363, 476-482, 539.
Haller, 66, 89, 404.
Hanstein, Johannes, 203, 343, 348, 350.
Hartig, Theodor, 301, 314, 342, 354, 532, 534.
Harting, 303, 560, 561.
Harvey, 205.
Hassenfratz, 495.
Hebenstreit, 76.
Hedwig, 123, 198, 207, 224, 253-255, 263, 283, 431, 437, 438.
Henfrey, 312, 335, 440.
Henschel, August, 422, 424, 425.
Herbert, William, 370, 420, 421, 431.
Hermann, 68.
Heucher, 76.
Hill, 76, 544.
Hofmeister, Wilhelm, 11, 118, 167, 170, 184, 199-203, 208, 209, 210,
228, 312, 318, 335, 336, 371, 439, 440.
Hooke, Robert, 221, 223, 229-232, 536.
Hornschuch, 206.
Ingen-Houss, 224, 368, 491, 493, 494-497.
Irmisch, 165.
Jessen, 397.
Johnson, 549.
Jungermann, 39.
Jung (Jungius), 40, 43, 58-63, 64, 73, 80, 115, 155, 221, 381,
454-456.
Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de, 9, 23, 77, 92, 109, 110, 116-122, 125,
155, 431
Jussieu, Bernard de, 9, 41, 109, 115.
Karsten, 313, 320.
Kessler, 19.
Kieser, 160, 283, 320.
Knaut, Christopher, 74, 76.
Knight, Andrew, 421, 431, 506, 548.
Kölliker, 313.
Koelreuter, 89, 122, 123, 247, 406-414, 431, 437, 544, 545.
Kützing, 205, 206.
Lantzius-Beninga, 198.
Lavoisier, 491, 492, 507.
Leeuwenhoek, 223, 244, 245, 259.
Leibnitz, 83, 391, 397.
Leitgeb, 203.
Lesczyc-Suminsky, 438, 441.
L’Heritier, 137.
Léveillé, 205.
Liebig, 373, 449, 525-531.
Lindley, 9, 147, 148.
Lindsay, 550.
Link, 161, 211, 225, 233-259, 261, 267-270, 310, 505, 546.
Linnaeus, 8-10, 37, 40, 41, 49, 56, 65, 71, 79-108, 113, 118, 397-402,
431.
Lister, 470.
Lobelius (_see_ de l’Obel).
Logan, James, 391, 392.
Ludwig, 76, 248.
Macaire, Prinsep, 511.
Magnol, 8, 470.
Mairan, 544.
Major, Johann Daniel, 456, 460, 469.
Malpighi, 44, 48, 63, 69, 89, 155, 221, 223, 231-239, 241, 262, 363,
366, 367, 381, 457-461.
Man, James, 258.
Marcet, 506.
Mariotte, 461-470, 539.
Mattioli, 3, 18, 29.
Mayo, 550.
Medicus, 255, 267.
Menzel, 39.
Mercklin, 441.
Mettenius, 198, 202, 439.
Meyen, 208, 225, 226, 259, 260, 284-292, 305, 310, 322, 333, 351, 508,
514, 523, 554, 555, 558.
Meyer, Chr., 559.
Meyer, Ernst, 18, 160, 161, 401, 560.
Micheli, 211, 437.
Mikan, 385.
Milde, 202, 440.
Millardet, 350.
Miller, 391, 392.
Millington, 382, 384, 385, 399.
Mirbel (_see_ Brisseau-Mirbel).
Mohl, Hugo von, 105, 161, 183, 192, 223, 226, 227, 259, 260, 284,
291-311, 318, 321, 325, 329, 336, 340, 349, 350, 351, 354, 355,
374, 529-532, 550, 551, 558.
Moldenhawer, J. J. P., 225, 257-261 276-284.
Morison, 7, 8, 63, 66-68, 101.
Morland, Samuel, 391, 394.
Morren, 208, 322.
Mulder, 303, 529, 560.
Müller, 343.
Münter, 560.
Mustel, 266, 267, 490.
Nägeli, 11, 63, 118, 161, 166, 183, 185, 193-197, 208, 226, 227, 297,
302, 312-316, 318, 326-334, 336, 340, 346-356, 438, 558, 559.
Naumann, 169.
Needham, 431.
Nees von Essenbeck, 160, 205, 212, 438.
Nieuwentyt, 472.
Oelhafen, 39.
Ohlert, 559.
Oken, 161.
Palm, 550.
Payen, 303.
Payer, 191, 556, 557.
Percival, 547.
Perrault, 403, 460, 470.
Persoon, 211.
Plato, 11.
Platz, Wilhelm, 483.
Pliny, 3, 13. 15, 34, 378.
Ploessl, 258.
Poggioli, 556.
Polstorff, 526.
Pontedera, 391, 399, 401.
Priestley, 491-494.
Pringsheim, 203, 209, 210, 213, 318, 372, 442, 443.
Radlkofer, 314, 350, 354, 435.
Ramisch, 422, 426.
Raspail, 320.
Ratzenberger, 19.
Ray, 7, 8, 39, 40, 59, 60, 63, 67, 68-74, 101, 115, 384, 471, 536-538.
Reichel, Christian, 484.
Rivinus (_see_ Bachmann).
Roemer, 401.
Roeper, 144, 371, 555.
Rudbeck, 76, 79.
Rudolphi, 211, 256, 258, 267-270.
Ruppius, 76.
Saint-Hilaire, Auguste de, 149.
Saint-Pierre, 137.
Salm-Horstmar, 532.
Sanio, Karl, 309, 316, 318, 341, 349, 350.
Sarrabat (_see_ de la Baisse).
Saussure, Theodore de, 126, 369, 370, 497-504, 506, 531.
Sbaraglia, 472.
Schacht, Hermann, 280, 283, 302, 305, 318, 337, 338, 341, 343, 345,
348, 434, 435.
Schaeffer, J. C., 211.
Scheffer, 39.
Schellhammer, 74.
Schelver, F. J., 422, 424.
Schimper, C. Friedr., 162-170.
Schimper, W. B., 198.
Schlechtendal, 192.
Schleiden, 63, 161, 179, 183, 188-193, 226, 297, 302, 311, 322, 323,
326, 341, 345, 433-436, 529, 558.
Schmidel, 20, 123, 197, 438.
Schmitz, 212, 556.
Schrank, Paula, 255, 425.
Schulz-Schulzenstein, 293, 300, 320, 545.
Schulze, Franz, 284, 318, 373.
Schulze, Max, 314, 339.
Schwann, 313.
Schwendener, 215.
Selligue, 258.
Senebier, 126, 224, 249, 369, 495-497, 547, 561.
Sharroc, 537.
Smith, 545.
Spallanzani, Lazaro, 422-424.
Sprengel, Konrad, 363, 368, 414-422.
Sprengel, Kurt, 66, 125, 224, 256, 259, 262, 263, 268, 320, 469.
Steinheil, 559.
Sternberg, 184.
Suminsky (_see_ Lesczye-Suminsky).
Thal (Thalius), 18.
Theophrastus, 3, 4, 13, 15-17, 34, 219, 377.
Thümmig, 248, 473.
Thuret, 209, 210, 314, 372, 442, 443.
Tonge, 470.
Tournefort, Pitton de, 7, 8, 39, 63, 76 79, 83, 101, 115, 391, 401,
544.
Tragus (_see_ Bock).
Trentepohl, 206, 207.
Treviranus, 19, 161, 256, 261, 267, 270-272, 275, 290, 310, 320, 425,
520-524, 545.
Trew, 560.
Trog, 212.
Tulasne, 213, 435.
Turpin, 320.
Unger, 161, 184, 198, 206, 227, 300, 305, 312, 314, 318, 325-329, 333,
336-340, 346, 375, 438, 559.
Vagetius, 59.
Vaillant, Sebastian, 391, 397, 398.
Valentin, 355, 386, 387, 402.
Van der Hopp, 560.
Van Deyl, 257.
Van Helmont, 455.
Varro, 535.
Vaucher, 126, 207, 372, 438, 545.
Voight, 160.
Volkamer, 39.
Vrolik, 508.
Wallroth, 215.
Walther, Friedrich, 483.
Weickert, 257.
Wiegman, 526.
Wigand, 105, 341, 558.
Wilbrand, 425.
Willoughby, 470.
Wolff, Christian, 221, 247, 402, 403, 472-476.
Wolff, Kaspar Friedr., 44, 155, 190, 249-253, 273, 275, 276, 319, 405.
Woodward, 472.
Wright, 257.
Wydler, 165.
Zaluziansky, 380, 381.
Zantedeschi, 557.
Zinn, 544.
THE END.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It will be shown in a later chapter that Linnaeus’ sexual system
was intended to be artificial.
[2] Kurt Sprengel in his ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. 1817, and
Ernst Meyer in his ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv. 1857 have described
the connection between the first beginnings of modern botany and
the general state of learning in the 15th and 16th centuries; a
particularly interesting notice of Valerius Cordus from the pen
of Thilo Irmisch will be found in the ‘Prüfungsprogramm’ of the
Schwarzburg gymnasium of Sondershausen for 1862. Here, as throughout,
the present work will be confined to the investigation and description
of the development of strictly botanical ideas.
[3] Otto Brunfels, born at Mainz before the year 1500, was at first a
student of theology and a monk; becoming a convert to Protestantism he
was actively engaged at Strassburg first as a teacher and afterwards as
a physician; he died in 1534.
[4] Beside the herbals mentioned in the text, which may be regarded
as scientific works on botany, a considerable number of books on the
signature of plants were written in the 16th and 17th centuries in the
interests of medicine or medical superstition. It was believed that
certain external marks and resemblances between parts of plants and the
organs of the human body indicated the plants and the parts of them
which possessed healing virtues. Pritzel mentions by name twenty-four
works of the kind, which appeared between 1550 and 1697. The herbals
also noticed the signatures, and even Ray has an enquiry into the
subject.
[5] The fragments of Aristotelian botany which have come down to us
are to be found translated from Wimmer’s edition in Ernst Meyer’s
‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. p. 94.
[6] Ernst Meyer (Geschichte der Botanik) gives a full account of
Theophrastus, who was born at Lesbos A.C. 371 and died A.C. 286. An
edition of his work ‘De historia et de causis plantarum’ was published
by Theodor Gaza in 1483. See also Pritzel’s ‘Thesaurus literarum
botanicarum.’
[7] See L. C. Treviranus in his work, ‘Die Anwendung des Holzschnitts
zur bildlichen Darstellung der Pflanzen,’ Leipzig, 1855, and Choulant
‘Graphische Incunabeln,’ Leipzig, 1858.
[8] Konrad Gesner, born in Zürich in 1516, became after many
vicissitudes of fortune Professor of Natural History in his native
town, and died there of the plague in 1565. See Ernst Meyer,
‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv.
[9] Leonhard Fuchs, born at Membdingen in Bavaria in 1501, was
a student of the classics under Reuchlin in Ingolstadt in 1519,
and became Doctor of Medicine in 1524. Owing to his conversion to
Protestantism he led an unsettled life for some years, but was finally
made Professor of Medicine in Tübingen in 1535, and died there in 1566.
See Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv.
[10] Rembert Dodoens (Dodonaeus), born at Malines in 1517, was a
physician, and a man of varied culture; he published a number of
botanical works, some of them in Flemish, after 1552, and finally in
1583 his ‘Stirpium Historiae Pemptades vi’ (Antwerp). From 1574 to
1579 he was physician to the Emperor Maximilian II. In 1582 he became
Professor in Leyden and died in 1585. See Ernst Meyer, ‘Geschichte der
Botanik,’ iv. p. 340.
[11] Hieronymus Bock (Tragus) was born at Heiderbach in the Zweibrücken
in 1498; he was destined to the cloister, but embraced Protestantism
and became a schoolmaster in Zweibrücken and superintendent of the
Prince’s garden; he was afterwards preacher in Hornbach, where he
practised also as a physician and pursued his botanical studies; he
died in 1554. See Ernst Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ iv. p. 303.
[12] Pierandrea Mattioli, who was born at Siena in 1501 and died there
in 1577, was for many years physician at the court of Ferdinand I. He
wrote rather in the interests of medicine than of botany; his herbal,
originally a commentary on Dioscorides, was gradually enlarged and went
through more than sixty editions and issues in different languages. See
Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ vi.
[13] Charles de l’Écluse (Carolus Clusius) was born in Arras in 1526.
His family suffered from religious persecution in France, and he spent
the greater part of his life in Germany and the Netherlands; in 1573 he
removed to Vienna by the invitation of Maximilian II; in 1593 he became
professor in Leyden and died there in 1609. See Meyer, ‘Geschichte der
Botanik,’ iv, who gives full information respecting the eventful life
of this distinguished man.
[14] Jacques Dalechamps, a native of Caen, who died in 1588, was a
philologist rather than an original investigator of nature, as is
remarked by Meyer in his ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ vi. p. 395.
[15] Mathias de l’Obel (Lobelius), the friend and fellow-countryman of
Dodoens and de l’Écluse, was born at Lille in 1538 and died in England
in 1616. A full account of this botanist will be found in Meyer.
[16] Kaspar Bauhin was born at Basle in 1550, and like his elder
brother John studied under Fuchs; he collected plants in Switzerland,
Italy, and France, and became professor in Basle; he died in 1624. Some
account is given of him and of his brother by Haller in the preface
to his ‘Historia Stirpium Helvetiae’ (1768), and by Sprengel in his
‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. p. 364 (1818).
[17] Andrea Cesalpino (Caesalpinus) of Arezzo was born in 1519. He was
a pupil of Ghini and professor at Pisa, and afterwards physician to
Pope Clement VIII. He died in 1603.
[18] We find it stated in Theophrastus that if the pith of the vine
is destroyed the grapes contain no stones; this evidently points to a
still higher antiquity for the view that the seeds are formed from the
pith; see the De causis plantarum, v. ch. 5, in the ‘Theophrasti quae
supersunt opera’ of Schneider, Leipzig, 1818.
[19] These words are quoted by Linnaeus in the ‘Philosophia Botanica,’
par. 159.
[20] See his biography by Guhrauer, ‘Joachim Jungius und sein
Zeitalter,’ Tübingen, 1850; on his place in philosophy consult Ueberweg
(‘Geschichte der Philosophie,’ iii. p. 119), who regards him as a
forerunner of Leibnitz.
[21] Morison served in the royal army against Cromwell, and after the
defeat of his party retired to Paris, where he studied botany under
Robin. He was made physician to Charles II and Professor of Botany in
1660, and Professor of the same faculty in Oxford ten years later. See
Sprengel, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ ii. p. 30.
[22] The wood-engraving of the 16th century had fallen into decay,
and engraving on copper-plate had taken its place. A thick volume of
figures of plants in the largest folio size engraved on copper, the
‘Hortus Eistädtensis,’ appeared in the beginning of the 17th century.
[23] John Ray, born at Black Notley in Essex, was also a zoologist
of eminence. He studied theology and travelled in England and on the
continent, and afterwards devoted himself entirely to science, being
supported by a pension from Willoughby. See Carus, ‘Geschichte der
Zoologie,’ p. 428.
[24] A. Q. Bachmann (Rivinus) was the third son of Andreas Bachmann,
a physician and philologist of Halle. He is said to have spent 80,000
florins on the publication of his works and the providing them with the
500 copper-plates with which they were illustrated. A life of him and
just estimate of his work, by Du Petit-Thouars, is to be found in the
‘Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne.’
[25] Tournefort was born at Aix in Provence, and received his early
education in a Jesuit college. He was intended for the Church, but
after his father’s death, in 1677, he was able to devote himself
entirely to botany. After travelling in France and Spain, he became
Professor at the Jardin des Plantes in 1683; but while thus engaged he
made various journeys in Europe, and in 1700 visited Greece, Asia, and
Africa—everywhere diligently collecting the plants which he afterwards
described.
[26] In addition to the Autobiography of Linnaeus, various accounts of
his life have been written, some of which are mentioned in Pritzel’s
‘Thesaurus Lit. Bot.’ A strange revelation of his character and
sentiments is to be found in his treatise on the ‘Nemesis divina,’
which he bequeathed to his son. Of this work Professor Fries has
unfortunately published an epitome only, which is noticed in the
Regensburg Flora, No. 44 (1851). On Linnaeus’ services to zoology, see
Carus, ‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ München, 1872.
[27] Printed in Jessen’s ‘Botanik der Gegenwart and Vorzeit,’ p. 287.
[28] ‘Epistola ad Godofredum Gulielmum Leibnitzium etc. cum Laurentii
Heisteri praefatione,’ Helmstadii, 1750.
[29] See the excellent account of the Platonic and Aristotelian
philosophies and of scholasticism in Albert Lange’s ‘Geschichte des
Materialismus,’ second edition, 1874.
[30] The comparison of the vegetable seed with the egg in animals,
which is in itself incorrect, comes, as Aristotle tells us, from
Empedocles, and was a favourite one with the systematists.
[31] Linnaeus uses the word ‘herba’ for the older word ‘germen,’ which
with him means the ovary.
[32] It would not be difficult to prove that the doctrine of the
constancy of species is properly a conclusion from scholasticism, and
ultimately from the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and was therefore
assumed as self-evident before the time of Linnaeus, who only gave it a
more distinct and conscious expression; his arguments from experience
are without force. The strength of the dogma lies in its relation to
the platonico-scholastic philosophy, which the systematists followed,
more or less consciously, up to quite recent times.
[33] The authority for the contents of these dissertations is Wigand’s
‘Kritik und Geschichte der Metamorphose’ (1846).
[34] Bernard de Jussieu, born at Lyons in 1699, and at first a
practising physician there, was by Vaillant’s intervention called to
Paris, and after Vaillant’s death became Professor and Demonstrator at
the Royal Garden. He and Peissonel were among the first who declared
against the vegetable nature of the Corals. It is expressly stated in
his Éloge (‘Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences,’ Paris, 1777)
that he founded his natural families on the Linnaean fragment. He died
in 1777.
[35] A. L. de Jussieu, born at Lyons, came to Paris to his uncle
Bernard in 1765. In 1790 he was a member of the Municipality, and till
1792 Superintendent of Hospitals. When the Annales du Museum were
founded in 1802, he resumed his botanical pursuits. In 1826 his son
Adrien took his place at the Museum. See his life by Brougniart in the
‘Annales des Sciences Naturelles,’ vii (1837).
[36] Joseph Gärtner was born at Calw in Würtemberg in 1732, and died
in 1791. He commenced his studies in Göttingen in 1751, where he was a
pupil of Haller. He travelled into Italy, France, Holland, and England
in order to make the acquaintance of famous naturalists, and worked
also at physics and zoology. In 1760 he was Professor of Anatomy in
Tübingen, and in 1768 became Professor of Botany at St. Petersburg;
but finding himself unable to bear the climate, he returned to Calw
in 1770, and gave himself up entirely to his book, ‘De fructibus
et seminibus plantarum,’ which he had already commenced. Banks and
Thunberg, one of whom had returned from a voyage round the world, the
other from Japan, handed over to him the collections of fruits which
they had made. His persistent study, partly with the microscope,
brought him near to blindness. There is an interesting life of Gärtner
by Chaumeton in the ‘Biographie Universelle.’
[37] Augustin Pyrame de Candolle sprang from a Provençal family, which
had fled from religious persecution to Geneva, where it was and is
still held in great estimation. He associated as a boy with Vaucher,
and on his first visit to Paris in 1796 with Desfontaines and Dolomieu,
and after his return to Geneva was a friend of Senebier. The elder
Saussure, and afterwards Biot, whom he assisted in an investigation in
physics, endeavoured to attach him to that study. He spent the years
from 1798 to 1808 in Paris, where he lived in close intercourse with
the naturalists of that city. Numerous smaller monographs, and the
publication of his work on succulent plants and of a new edition of
De Lamarck’s ‘Flore Française,’ occupied this earlier period of his
life. From 1808 to 1816 he was Professor of Botany at Montpellier.
During this time he made many botanical journeys in all parts of
France and the neighbouring countries, and wrote many monographs, his
essays on the geography of plants, and his most important work, the
‘Théorie élémentaire.’ From 1816 till his death in 1841 he resided
once more in Geneva, which had freed itself in 1813 from the enforced
connection with France established in 1798. Here De Candolle found
time to take part in political and social questions, in addition to an
almost incredible amount of botanical labour. (Notice sur la vie et les
ouvrages de A. P. De Candolle par De la Rive, Genève, 1845.)
[38] Robert Brown was the son of a Protestant minister of Montrose, and
studied medicine first at Aberdeen and afterwards in Edinburgh; he then
became a surgeon in the army, and was at first stationed in the north
of Ireland. When the Admiralty despatched a scientific expedition to
Australia under Captain Flinders in 1801, he was appointed naturalist
to the expedition on the recommendation of Sir Joseph Banks, F. Bauer
being associated with him as botanical draughtsman, Good as gardener,
Westall as landscape-painter; one of the midshipmen of the vessel
was John Franklin. In consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship
Flinders left Australia, intending to return with a better one, but was
shipwrecked on the voyage and detained by the French at Port Louis as a
prisoner of war till 1810. The naturalists of the expedition remained
in Australia till 1805, when Brown returned to England with 4000 for
the most part new species of plants. Sir J. Banks appointed him his
librarian and keeper of his collections in 1810; he was also Librarian
to the Linnaean Society of London. In 1823 he received the bequest of
Banks’ library and collections, which were to be transferred after his
death to the British Museum; but by his own wish they were deposited
there at once, and he himself received the appointment of Custodian of
the Museum and remained in that position till his death. At Humboldt’s
suggestion Sir Robert Peel’s Ministry granted him a yearly pension of
£200. His merits were universally acknowledged, and Humboldt even named
him ‘botanicorum facile princeps.’
[39] Stephen Ladislaus Endlicher was born at Pressburg in 1805, and
abandoning the study of theology became Scriptor in the Imperial
Library at Vienna in 1828, and in 1836 Custos of the botanical
department of the Imperial Collection of Natural History. Having
graduated at the University in 1840, he became Professor of Botany and
Director of the Botanic Garden. His library and herbarium, valued at
24,000 thalers, he presented to the State, and with his private means
founded the Annalen des Wiener-Museums, purchased botanical collections
and expensive botanical books, and published his own works and works of
other writers. His official salary was small, and having exhausted his
resources in these various expenses, he put an end to his own life in
March 1849. Endlicher was not only one of the most eminent systematists
of his day, but a philologist also, and a good linguist. He wrote among
other things a Chinese grammar. See ‘Linnaea,’ vol. xxxiii (1864 and
1865), p. 583.
[40] John Lindley, Professor of Botany in the University of London, was
born at Chatton near Norwich in 1799, and died in London in 1865.
[41] Auguste de Saint Hilaire was born at Orleans in 1779, and died
there in 1853; he was Professor at Paris, and in 1840 published
his ‘Leçons de Botanique comprenant principalement la Morphologie
Végétale,’ etc. This work contains a somewhat diffuse account of P.
de Candolle’s doctrine of symmetry, together with Goethe’s theory of
metamorphosis and Schimper’s doctrine of phyllotaxis, and his own
views also on classification founded on the comparative morphology of
the day. It is marked by fewer errors than will be found in Lindley’s
theoretical writings, but it is less profound, and touches only
incidentally on fundamental questions; at the same time it possesses
historical interest as giving a lucid description of the state of
morphology before 1840.
[42] See Wigand, ‘Geschichte und Kritik der Metamorphose,’ Leipzig,
1846, p. 38.
[43] See Goethe’s collected works in forty volumes, Cotta, 1858, vol.
xxxvi.
[44] See Haeckel, ‘Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,’ ed. 4, 1873, p. 80.
[45] Louis Marie Aubert du Petit-Thouars was born in Anjou in 1758 and
collected plants during many years in the Mauritius, Madagascar, and
Bourbon. He was afterwards Director of the Botanic Garden at Roule, and
became Member of the Academy in 1820. He died in 1831. His articles
in the ‘Biographie Universelle’ prove him to have been a writer of
ability. Preconceived opinions interfered with the success of his own
investigations, especially into the increase in thickness of woody
stems, and obstinate adherence to such notions prevented an unbiassed
interpretation of what he saw. See Flora, 1845, p. 439.
[46] K. F. Schimper, born in Mannheim in 1803, was at first a student
of theology in Heidelberg, but having afterwards travelled as a paid
collector of plants in the south of France, he applied himself to the
study of medicine. From 1828 to 1842 he was employed as a teacher in
the University of Munich, though occasionally engaged in exploring the
Alps, Pyrenees, and other districts, in the service of the King of
Bavaria. It was during this period of his life that he composed his
most important works on phyllotaxis, and essays on the former extension
of glaciers, and on the glacial period. He returned to the Palatinate
in 1842, and died at Schwetzingen in 1867 in the enjoyment of a pension
from the Grand duke of Baden.
[47] See Hofmeister, ‘Allgemeine Morphologie’ (1868), pp. 471, 479, and
Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ ed. 4 (1874), p. 195.
[48] See Nägeli, ‘Beiträge zur Wissenschaftlichen Botanik’ (1858), I,
pp. 40, 49.
[49] A comparison of the two theories and a refutation of Schleiden’s
assertion, that that of the brothers Bravais expresses better ‘the
simplicity of the law,’ will be found in ‘Flora,’ 1847, No. 13, from
the pen of Sendtner, and in Braun’s ‘Verjüngung,’ p. 126.
[50] This is not at all true of modern inductive science, which merely
forms a different idea of the connection, and has regard to the
relation between the percipient subject and the phenomena.
[51] See A. Bayer, ‘Leben und Wirken F. Unger’s,’ Gratz (1872), p. 52.
[52] See Darwin’s repudiation of this statement on p. 421 of Ed. 6 of
the ‘Origin of Species.’
[53] Casimir Christoph Schmidel was born in 1718 and died in 1792; he
was Professor of Medicine in Erlangen, and was the first who described
the sexual organs in various Liverworts.
[54] Lantzius Beninga, born in East Friesland in 1815, was a professor
in Göttingen, and died in 1871.
[55] Gottlieb Wilhelm Bischoff was born at Dürkheim on the Hardt in
1797, and died as Professor of Botany at Heidelberg in 1854. He wrote
various manuals and text-books which are careful and industrious
compilations, but being entirely conceived in the spirit of the times
preceding Schleiden they are now obsolete; his investigations however
into the Hepaticae, Characeae, and Vascular Cryptogams, illustrated
by very beautiful drawings from his own hand, are still of value; and
the same may be said of his ‘Handbuch der botanischen Terminologie und
Systemkunde’ on account of its numerous figures.
[56] Karl Adolf Agardh (1785-1859) was until 1835 Professor in Lund,
afterwards Bishop of Wermland and Dalsland. Jacob Georg Agardh, born
in 1813, was Professor in Lund. William Henry Harvey (1811-1866) was
Professor of Botany in Dublin. Friedrich Traugott Kützing, born in
1807, was Professor in the Polytechnic School of Nordhausen.
[57] C. G. Nees von Esenbeck published his ‘System der Pilze und
Schwämme’ in 1816; Th. F. L. Nees von Esenbeck, in conjunction with A.
Henty, a ‘System der Pilze’ in 1837. The first (1776-1858) was for a
long time President of the Leopoldina, Professor of Botany in Breslau,
and one of the chief representatives of the nature-philosophy. Elias
Fries, born in 1794, became Professor of Botany in Upsala in 1835; he
died in 1878. Léveillé (1796-1870) was a physician in Paris. August
Joseph Corda was born at Reichenberg in Bohemia in 1809, and became
custodian of the National Museum in Prague in 1835; he undertook a
journey to Texas in 1848, from which he never returned, having probably
perished by shipwreck in 1849. Weitenweber, in the ‘Abhandlungen der
Böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft,’ Bd. 7, Prag, 1852, gives
a full account of this eminent mycologist. Corda was the first who
thoroughly applied the microscope to copying and describing every form
of Fungus that was known to him, and especially the minuter ones.
His ‘Icones Fungorum hucusque cognitorum’ (1837-1854) are still an
indispensable manual in the study of the subject.
[58] Jean Pierre Étienne Vaucher, the instructor and friend of P. de
Candolle, was a minister and professor in Geneva.
[59] Trentepohl’s communication is to be found in the ‘Botanische
Bermerkungen und Berichtigungen’ of A. W. Roth, Leipsic, 1807.
[60] Pier’ Antonio Micheli, born at Florence in 1679, was Director
of the Botanic Garden there, and died in 1737. Johann Jacob Dillen
(Dillenius), born in Darmstadt in 1687, was Professor of Botany
in Oxford, and died in 1747. These two botanists were the first
who submitted the Mosses and the lower Cryptogams to scientific
examination, and endeavoured to prove the presence of sexual organs in
these plants.
[61] Jacob Christian Schaeffer, born in 1718, was Superintendent in
Regensburg; he died in 1790.
[62] See Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ ed. 4 (1874), p. 245.
[63] Fr. Wilh. Wallroth, born in the Harz in 1792, was district
physician at Nordhausen. He died in 1857. See ‘Flora’ for 1857, p. 336.
[64] Robert Hooke, born in 1635 at Freshwater in the Isle of Wight,
was a man of marvellous industry and varied acquirement in spite of
a delicate constitution. He became a Fellow of the Royal Society in
1662, and was afterwards its Secretary and Professor of Geometry in
Gresham College. He died in 1703. There is a good account of him by de
l’Aulnaye in the ‘Biographie Universelle.’
[65] Marcello Malpighi, born at Crevalcuore near Bologna in 1628,
became Doctor of Medicine in 1653, and after 1656 was Professor in
Bologna, Pisa, Messina, and a second time in Bologna; in 1691 he was
named Physician to Innocent XII. He died in 1694. On his services
to comparative anatomy, and the anatomy of the human body, see the
‘Biographie Universelle’ and Carus, ‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ p. 395.
[66] We read at p. 3: ‘Componuntur expositae fistulae (spirales)
zona tenui et pellucida, velut argentei coloris, lamina parum lata,
quae spiraliter locata et extremis lateribus unita tubum interius et
exterius aliquantulum asperum efficit; quin et avulsa zona capites seu
extremo trachearum tum plantarum tum insectorum non in tot disparatos
annulos resolvitur, ut in perfectorum trachea accidit; sed unica zona
in longum soluta et extensa extrahitur.’
[67] Nehemiah Grew, the son of a clergyman in Coventry, appears to
have been born in 1628. Having taken a Doctor’s degree in a foreign
University, he practised as a physician in his native town, and pursued
at the same time his phytotomical researches. He became Secretary to
the Royal Society in 1677, and published his ‘Cosmographia Sacra’ in
1701. He died in 1711. See the ‘Biographie Universelle.’
[68] Leeuwenhoek’s observations in animal anatomy were perhaps more
important than those which he made in botany. Carus (‘Geschichte der
Zoologie,’ p. 399) says of him: ‘While Malpighi used the microscope
with system and in accordance with the requirements of a series of
investigations, the instrument in the hands of the other famous
microscopist of the 17th century was more or less a means of gratifying
the curiosity excited in susceptible minds by the wonders of a world
which had hitherto been invisible. Still the discoveries, which were
the fruit of an assiduous use of the microscope continued during fifty
years, embraced many subjects and were important and influential. Anton
von Leeuwenhoek was born in Delft in 1632. Being intended for trade,
he had not the advantage of a learned education and is said even to
have been ignorant of Latin; his favourite occupation was the preparing
superior lenses, with which he incessantly examined new objects without
being guided at any time by a scientific plan. The Royal Society of
London, to whom he communicated his observations, made him a member of
their body. He died in his native town in 1723, being ninety years of
age.
[69] This subject will be noticed again in the history of the sexual
theory.
[70] C. F. Wolff was born at Berlin in 1733. He studied anatomy under
Meckel and botany under Gleditsch, in the Collegium Medico-chirurgicum
in that city. He afterwards resorted to the University of Halle, and
there made acquaintance with the philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolff,
which predominates too much in his dissertation, ‘Theoria Generationis’
(1759). Haller, the representative of the theory of evolution against
which this work was directed, replied to it in a kindly spirit and
entered into a correspondence with its youthful author. After lecturing
on medicine in Breslau, he was admitted to teach physiology and other
subjects in the Collegium Medico-chirurgicum in Berlin, but was twice
passed over in the appointment to professorships in that institution.
He received an appointment in the Academy of St. Petersburg from the
Empress Catherine II in 1766, and died in that city in 1794. See Alf.
Kirchhoff, ‘Idee der Pflanzenmetamorphose,’ Berlin, 1867.
[71] Johannes Hedwig, the founder of the scientific knowledge of the
Mosses, was born at Kronstadt in Siebenbürgen in 1730. Having completed
his studies at Leipsic, he returned to his native town, but was not
permitted to practice there as a physician because he had not taken
a degree in Austria. He consequently went back to Saxony and settled
first at Chemnitz, and in 1781 in Leipsic. Here he was appointed in
1784 to the Military Hospital, and became Professor extraordinary
of Medicine in 1786 and ordinary Professor of Botany in 1789. He
died 1799. He commenced his botanical studies as a student at the
University, and continued them in Chemnitz under trying circumstances,
till as Professor he was free to devote himself entirely to them.
[72] See P. Harting, ‘Das Mikroskop,’ §§ 433 and 434.
[73] Johann Jakob Bernhardi, born in 1774, was Professor of Botany in
Erfurt, and died there in 1850.
[74] Karl Asmus Rudolphi, born at Stockholm in 1771, was Professor of
Anatomy and Physiology in Berlin, and died there in 1832.
[75] Heinrich Friedrich Link was born at Hildesheim in 1767, and became
Doctor of Medicine of Göttingen in 1788. In 1792 he became Professor
of Zoology, Botany, and Chemistry in Rostock, Professor of Botany in
1811 in Breslau, and in 1815 in Berlin, where he died in 1851. He was
a clever man of very varied accomplishment, but not a very accurate
observer of details, and was held in estimation by many chiefly as
a good teacher and philosophic author of popular works on natural
science. He was one of the few German botanists in the early part of
the present century who aimed at a general knowledge of plants, and
combined anatomical and physiological enquiries with solid researches
in systematic botany. Of his many treatises on all branches of
botanical science, zoology, physics, chemistry, and other subjects,
his Göttingen prize essay must be considered to have contributed most
to the advancement of science. Von Martius somewhat overrates his
scientific importance in his ‘Denkrede auf H. F. Link’ in the ‘Gelehrte
Anzeigen,’ München (1851), 58-69.
[76] Ludolf Christian Treviranus, born at Bremen in 1779, became Doctor
of Medicine of Jena in 1801, and practised at first in his native
town, where he became a teacher at the Lyceum in 1807. In 1812 he
accepted the professorship in Rostock vacated by Link, and was again
his successor in Breslau. In 1830 he exchanged posts with C. G. Nees
von Esenbeck, who was a professor in Bonn; he died in that town in
1864. In the first part of his life he occupied himself chiefly with
vegetable anatomy and physiology, afterwards with the determination
and correction of species. His first works, which are noticed in
the text, and the treatises on sexuality and the embryology of the
Phanerogams, published between 1815 and 1828, are the most important
in a historical point of view. His ‘Physiologie der Gewächse’ in two
volumes (1835-1838) is still of value for its accurate information on
the literature of the subject; but it can scarcely be said to have
contributed to the advance of physiology, for its author adhered in it
to the old views, and especially to the notion of the vital force, at a
time when new ideas were already asserting themselves. The ‘Botanische
Zeitung’ for 1864, p. 176, contains a notice of his life.
[77] Charles François Mirbel (Brisseau-Mirbel) was born at Paris in
1776, and died in 1854. He began life as a painter, but having been
introduced by Desfontaines to the study of botany, he became Member
of the Institute in 1808, and soon after Professor in the University
of Paris. From 1816 to 1825 the cares of administration withdrew him
from his botanical studies, but he resumed them and became in 1829
Professeur des cultures in the Museum of Natural History. Mirbel was
the founder of microscopic vegetable anatomy in France. All that had
been accomplished there before his time was still more unimportant
than the work done in Germany. His writings involved him in many
controversies, and he made enemies by refusing in his capacity of
teacher to allow the importance at that time attributed to systematic
botany, but directed his pupils to the study of structure and the
phenomena of life in plants. We are told by Milne-Edwards that he
suffered much from the fierce attacks which were made upon him; he
sank at last into a weak and apathetic state, and was for some time
before his death unable to continue his studies or official duties
(‘Botanische Zeitung’ for 1855, p. 343).
[78] Johann Jakob Paul Moldenhawer was Professor of Botany in Kiel; he
was born at Hamburg in 1766, and died in 1827.
[79] On the doubts which were entertained till after 1812 on the
subject of stomata, see Mohl’s ‘Ranken und Schlingpflanzen’ (1827), p.
9.
[80] Franz Julius Ferdinand Meyen was born at Tilsit in 1804, and died
as Professor in Berlin in 1840. He applied himself at first to pharmacy
and afterwards to medicine, and having taken a degree in 1826 he
practised for some years as a physician. In 1830 he set out on a voyage
round the world under instructions from A. von Humboldt, and returned
in 1832 with large collections. He was made Professor in Berlin in
1834. There is a notice of his life in ‘Flora’ of 1845, p. 618.
[81] Hugo Mohl (afterwards von Mohl) was born at Stuttgart in 1805,
and died as Professor of Botany in Tübingen in 1872. His father held
an important civil office under the Government of Würtemberg. Robert
Mohl, also in the service of the Government, Julius Mohl, the Oriental
scholar, and Moritz Mohl, the political economist, were his brothers.
The instruction at the Gymnasium at Stuttgart, which he attended for
twelve years, was confined to the study of the ancient languages; but
Mohl early evinced a preference for natural history, physics, and
mechanics, and devoted himself in private to these subjects. He became
a student of medicine in Tübingen in 1823, and took his degree in 1828.
He then spent several years in Munich in intercourse with Schrank,
Martius, Zuccharini and Steinheil and obtained abundant material for
his researches into Palms, Ferns, and Cycads. He became Professor
of Physiology in Berne in 1832, and Professor of Botany in Tübingen
after Schübler’s death in 1835, and there he remained till his death,
refusing various invitations to other spheres of work. He was never
married, and his somewhat solitary life of devotion to his science was
of the simplest and most uneventful kind. He was intimately acquainted
with all parts of botanical science, and possessed a thorough knowledge
of many other subjects; he was in fact a true and accomplished
investigator of nature. A very pleasing sketch of his life from the pen
of De Bary is to be found in the ‘Botanische Zeitung’ of 1872, No. 31.
[82] But von Mohl expressed some doubts on this point in 1844
(‘Botanische Zeitung,’ p. 340).
[83] This tertiary layer was at first supposed by Theodor Hartig to be
of general occurrence; von Mohl in 1844 considered it to be present
only in certain cases.
[84] Anselm Payen (1795-1871) was born at Paris and was Professor of
Industrial Chemistry in the École des Arts et Métiers in that city. His
most important botanical works were his ‘Mémoire sur l’amidon,’ etc.,
Paris (1839), and his ‘Mémoire sur le développement des Végétaux,’
published in the Memoirs of the Academy of Paris.
[85] On this point, see von Mohl’s citation in ‘Flora’ of 1827, p. 13.
I have not myself been able to consult the originals.
[86] See Meyen, ‘Neues System,’ ii. 344.
[87] Franz Unger was born in 1800 on the estate of Amthof, near
Leutschach in South Steiermark, and was educated up to the age of
sixteen in the Benedictine Monastery of Gratz. Having gone through the
three years’ course of ‘philosophy,’ he turned his attention, by his
father’s wish, to jurisprudence; but he abandoned this study in 1820,
and became a student of medicine, first in Vienna, and afterwards in
Prague. From the latter place he made a vacation tour in Germany, and
formed the acquaintance of Oken, Carus, Rudolphi, and other men of
science, and in 1825 of Jacquin and Endlicher, with the latter of whom
he maintained an active correspondence on scientific subjects. Having
taken his degree in 1827, he practised as a physician in Vienna till
the year 1830, and after that date was medical official at Kitzbühl
in the Tyrol. During these years he continued the botanical studies
which he had commenced as a youth, and at Kitzbühl directed special
attention to the diseases of plants, to palaeontological researches,
and to enquiries into the influence of soil on the distribution of
plants. At the end of 1835 he became Professor of Botany at the
Johanneum in Gratz, and devoting himself there especially to the study
of palaeontology, he soon became the most eminent authority on that
subject. Having been made Professor of Vegetable Physiology in Vienna
in 1849, he applied himself more to physiology and phytotomy. He
retired from this position in 1866, and from that time forward lived as
a private individual in Gratz, promoting scientific knowledge by the
publication of popular treatises and the delivery of lectures. He died
in 1870. Information respecting his personal character and his varied
and copious labours in many departments of botanical science is given
by Leitgeb in the ‘Botanische Zeitung’ of 1870, No. 16, and by Reyer,
‘Leben und Wirken des Naturhistoriker Unger,’ Gratz, 1871.
[88] Hermann Schacht was born at Ochsenwerder in 1824, and died in 1864
in Bonn, where he had been Professor of Botany since 1859.
[89] See Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ ed. 4 (1874), p. 129 (p. 128 of
2nd English edition).
[90] See Ernst Meyer, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ I. p. 98, &c.
[91] The edition here used is that of Gottlob Schneider, ‘Theophrasti
Eresii quæ supersunt opera,’ Leipzig, 1818. See in addition to the
passages noticed in the text the ‘De Causis,’ l. I. c. 13. 4, and l.
IV. c. 4, and the ‘Historia Plantarum,’ l. II. c. 8.
[92] It should be understood that neither Theophrastus nor the
botanists of the 16th and 17th centuries considered the rudiments of
the fruit to be part of the flower; this, which was pointed out in the
history of systematic botany, seems to have been overlooked by Meyer,
‘Geschichte,’ I. p. 164.
[93] The passage is quoted in full in De Candolle’s ‘Physiologie
végétale,’ 1835, ii. p. 44. It is said there of the pollen, ‘Ipso et
pulvere etiam feminas maritare.’
[94] See De Candolle, ‘Physiologie végétale,’ p. 47.
[95] His ‘Methodus Herbaria’ is said to have been published in 1592.
The remarks in the text are made in reliance on a long quotation from
it in Roeper’s translation of De Candolle’s ‘Physiologie,’ ii. p. 49,
who had before him an edition of 1604.
[96] In the ‘Compositae,’ however, Grew called the single flowers the
florid attire, see p. 37.
[97] We may compare with this, pp. 38 and 39 of the first part of the
work which appeared in 1671, where Grew ascribed no sexual significance
to the stamens.
[98] Rudolph Jacob Camerarius was born at Tübingen in 1665 and died
there in 1721. Having completed the course of study in philosophy
and medicine, he travelled from 1685 to 1687 in Germany, Holland,
England, France, and Italy. In 1688 he became Professor Extraordinary
and Director of the Botanic Garden in Tübingen; in 1689 Professor
of Natural Philosophy; and finally, in 1695, First Professor of the
University, in succession to his father, Elias Rudolph Camerarius. He
was afterwards succeeded by his son Alexander, one of ten children.
There is an article on Camerarius in the ‘Biographie Universelle,’
from the pen of Du Petit-Thouars. His works on other subjects, as well
as those on the question of sexuality in plants, are distinguished by
ingenious conception and lucid exposition.
[99] See Patrick Blair’s ‘Botanic Essays,’ in two parts (1720), pp.
242-276. Even the Latin ode is borrowed without acknowledgment.
[100] The account in the text is taken from Koelreuter’s report in his
‘Historie der Versuche über das Geschlechte der Pflanzen,’ as given
at p. 188 of Mikan’s ‘Opuscula Botanici Argumenti.’ Logan’s work,
‘Experimenta et Meletamata de Plantarum Generatione,’ unknown to me, is
said by Pritzel to have been published at the Hague in 1739. Koelreuter
cites from a London edition of 1747.
[101] Koelreuter’s report in Mikan’s collection is again the authority
which is here relied on.
[102] Koelreuter says that he sent pollen of Chamaerops in 1766 to
St. Petersburg and to Berlin, where it was successfully employed by
Eckleben and Gleditsch. He wished to try how long the pollen retains
its efficacy.
[103] See Vol. II. p. 502, of the ‘Physiologie végétale.’
[104] See Mikan, ‘Opuscula Botanici Argumenti,’ p. 180.
[105] Joseph Gottlieb Koelreuter was born at Sulz on the Neckar in
1733, and died at Carlsruhe in 1806, where he was Professor of Natural
History, and from 1768 to 1786 Director also of the Botanic and
Grand-ducal Gardens. On giving up the latter position he continued his
experiments in his own small garden till the year 1790. Karl Friedrich
Gärtner in his work ‘Ueber Bastardzeugung’ of 1849, at p. 5 says that
after the latter date Koelreuter occupied himself with experiments
in alchemy; but this must be a mistake. Gärtner, loco cit., and the
‘Flora’ of 1839, p. 245, supply all that seems to be known of the life
of this distinguished man. The ‘Biographic Universelle’ contains no
account of him. It would appear that he was in St. Petersburg before
1766.
[106] See Gärtner, ‘Ueber Bastardzeugung’ (1849), p. 62. I have
unfortunately been unable to meet with the second continuation of
Koelreuter’s work.
[107] Christian Konrad Sprengel, born in 1750, was for some time Rector
at Spandau. There he began to occupy himself with botany, and devoted
so much time to it that he neglected the duties of his office, and even
the Sunday’s sermon, and was removed from his post. He afterward lived
a solitary life in straitened circumstances in Berlin, being shunned by
men of science as a strange, eccentric person. He supported himself by
giving instruction in languages and in botany, using his Sundays for
excursions, which any one who chose could join on payment of two or
three groschen. He met with so little support and encouragement that
he never brought out the second part of his famous work; his publisher
did not even give him a copy of the first part. Natural disgust at the
neglect with which his work was treated made him forsake botany and
devote himself to languages. He died in 1816. One of his pupils wrote a
very hearty eulogium on him in the ‘Flora’ of 1819, p. 541, which has
supplied the above facts.
[108] See Hermann Müller, ‘Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insecten,’
Leipzig (1873). p. 5.
[109] Lazaro Spallanzani was born at Scandiano in Modena, and died
at Pavia in 1799, where he was for a long time Professor of Natural
History. He made researches in very various questions of natural
science, and especially in animal physiology; but they seem to have
been conducted with the same want of care and deliberation which
appears in his experiments on sexuality in plants. A long article in
the ‘Biographie Universelle’ gives a detailed account of his scientific
labours.
[110] August Henschel was a practising physician and a University
teacher in Breslau.
[111] Karl Friedrich Gärtner, son of Joseph Gärtner, was born at Calw
in 1772, and died there in 1850. He attended lectures on natural
science at the Carlsacademie at Stuttgart, and then went first to Jena
for medical instruction, and in 1795 to Göttingen, where he was a pupil
of Lichtenberg. He took a degree in 1796 and settled as a physician
in his native town. Here he occupied himself at first with questions
of human physiology, and afterwards worked at the supplement to his
father’s ‘Carpologia.’ He collected notices and extracts for a complete
work on vegetable physiology. This design was never fulfilled, but it
led to his taking up the question of sexuality in plants, to which
he devoted twenty-five years (‘Jahresheft des Vereins für vaterl.
Naturkunde in Würtemberg,’ 1852, vol. viii, p. 16).
[112] See also Sachs, ‘Lehrbuch der Botanik,’ Leipzig, 1874.
[113] The more important works referred to in this section are Robert
Brown’s ‘Miscellaneous Writings,’ edited by Bennett, 1866-67; von
Mohl on G. Amici, in the ‘Botanische Zeitung,’ 1863, Beilage, p. 7;
Schleiden, ‘Ueber die Bildung des Lichens und Entsichung des Embryos,’
in ‘Nova Acta Academiae Leopoldinensis,’ 1839, vol. xi, Abtheilung,
1; Hofmeister, ‘Zur Uebersicht der Geschichte von der Lehre der
Pflanzenbefruchtung,’ in ‘Flora’ of 1867, p. 119.
[114] The authorities for these statements are collected by Hofmeister
in ‘Flora,’ 1857, p. 120, etc.
[115] W. P. Schimper, in his ‘Recherches anatomiques et morphologiques
sur les Mousses’ of 1850, had made some important statements respecting
the sterility of female moss-plants growing at a distance from male
specimens, and proved that the presence of male plants among females
that are otherwise barren renders them fruitful.
[116] See the Fragments of Aristotelian phytology in Meyer’s
‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. p. 120.
[117] J. B. van Helmont was born at Brussels in 1577, and died at
Villvorde near Brussels in 1644. He was a leading representative of the
chemistry of his day. Kopp, in his ‘Geschichte der Chemie,’ 1843, i. p.
117, has given a full account of his life and labours.
[118] J. D. Major, who was born at Breslau in 1639, and died at
Stockholm in 1693, is quoted by Christian Wolff, as well as by
Reichel (‘De vasis plantarum.’ 1758, p. 4) and others, as the founder
of the theory of circulation, which he propounded in 1665 in his
‘Dissertatio Botanica de planta monstrosa Gottorpiensi,’ etc. Kurt
Sprengel (‘Geschichte der Botanik, ii. p. 7) classes him also among the
defenders of the doctrine of palingenesia, a superstitious belief in
the reproduction of plants and animals from their ashes, which was used
to prove the resurrection of the dead.
[119] He says, ‘in mediis vasculis reticularibus,’ which when taken in
connection with his general histology, must be understood to mean the
bast-bundles.
[120] The date of the birth of Edme Mariotte is not known. He was a
native of Burgundy, and lived in Dijon at the time of his earliest
scientific labours. He was an ecclesiastic and became Prior of St.
Martin sous Beaune near Dijon; he was a Member of the Academy of
Sciences in Paris from its foundation in 1666, and was one of the first
Frenchmen who experimented in physics and applied mathematics to them.
He died in Paris in 1684 (‘Biographie Universelle’).
[121] See the Fragments of Aristotelian phytology in Meyer’s
‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. pp. 119, 125.
[122] His views are known to me only from Magnol’s paper in the
‘Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences,’ 1709, and Sprengel’s
‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ ii. 20. Perrault’s treatise is according to
Pritzel’s ‘Thesaurus’ of the date of 1680, but is published in the
‘Œuvres divers de Perrault’ of 1721.
[123] Especially in pages 1165, 1201, 2067, 2119.
[124] Stephen Hales was born in the county of Kent in 1677 and was
educated at home without showing any special ability. At the age of
nineteen he became a member of Christ’s College in Cambridge, and there
showed his taste for physics, mathematics, chemistry, and natural
history. Nevertheless he took orders and held Church preferment in
different counties. He became a Member of the Royal Society in 1718,
and read before it his ‘Statical Essays.’ His ‘Hæmostatics’ appeared
in 1733. He made and published other investigations and discoveries
of very various kinds before his death in 1761. He was buried in his
church at Riddington, which he had rebuilt at his own cost, and the
Princess of Wales caused an inscription to his memory to be placed in
Westminster Abbey. See his Éloge in ‘Histoire de l’Académie Royale des
Sciences,’ 1762.
[125] See Sprengel, ‘Geschichte der Botanik,’ i. 229, and Reichel’s and
Bonnet’s works mentioned below.
[126] Georg Christian Reichel was born in 1727 and died in 1771. He was
Professor in the University of Leipsic.
[127] Charles Bonnet, born at Geneva in 1720, sprang from a wealthy
family, and was intended for the profession of the law, but gave
himself up from an early age to scientific pursuits, and especially to
zoology. He was afterwards a member of the great council of Geneva,
and wrote various treatises on scientific subjects, psychology, and
theology. He died on his properly at Genthod near Geneva in 1793. See
the ‘Biographie Universelle’ and Carus, ‘Geschichte der Zoologie,’ p.
526.
[128] See p. 35 of the German translation by Arnold, 1762.
[129] Henri Louis du Hamel du Monceau was born at Paris in 1700
and died in 1781. He had an estate in the Gatinais, and turned his
studies in physics, chemistry, zoology, and botany to account in the
composition of a number of treatises on agriculture, the management of
woods and forests, naval affairs, and fisheries. He was made Member
of the Academy in 1728 on presenting to it an essay on a disease then
raging in the saffron-plantations, and caused by the growth of a fungus
(‘Biographie Universelle’).
[130] See Kopp, ‘Geschichte der Chemie’ (1843), i. p. 306, and
‘Entwicklung der Chemie in der neucrenzeit’ (1873), p. 138.
[131] Still less was gained from an observation made by Bonnet, that
leaves exposed to sun-light in water containing air show bubbles
of gas on their upper surface. Bonnet expressly denied the active
participation of the leaves in the phenomenon, since the same thing
happens with dead leaves in water containing air.
[132] Jan Ingen-Houss, physician to the Emperor of Austria, practised
first in Breda, and afterwards in London. He was born at Breda in
Holland in 1730, and died near London in 1799.
[133] Jean Senebier, born at Geneva in 1742, was the son of a
tradesman, and after 1765 pastor of the Evangelical Church. On his
return from a visit to Paris he published his ‘Moral Tales,’ and at
the suggestion of his friend Bonnet competed for a prize offered at
Haarlem for an essay on the Art of Observation. He was awarded the
second place in this competition. In 1769 he became pastor at Chancy,
and in 1773 librarian of Geneva. At this time, among other literary
labours, he translated Spallanzani’s more important writings; he also
studied chemistry under Tingry, and carried out his researches into the
influence of light. In 1791 he wrote an article for the ‘Encyclopaedie
méthodique’ on vegetable physiology. The revolution in Geneva drove him
into the Canton Vaud, and there he composed his ‘Physiologie végétale,’
in five volumes. He returned to Geneva in 1799 and took part in a new
translation of the Bible. He died in that city in 1809 (‘Biographie
Universelle’).
[134] Nicolas Théodore de Saussure was born at Geneva in 1767, and died
there in 1845. He was the son of the famous explorer of the Alps, and
assisted his father in his observations on Mont Blanc and the Col du
Géant. In 1797 he wrote his treatise on carbonic acid in its relation
to vegetation, a prelude to his ‘Recherches chimiques’; the latter
work received great attention from the scientific world, and he was
made a corresponding member of the French Institute. He was a man of
literary tastes, and took part also in public affairs, being repeatedly
elected to the Council of Geneva. His preference for a secluded life
is said to have been the reason why he never undertook the duties of a
professorship. See the supplement to the ‘Biographie Universelle’ and
Poggendorf’s ‘Biographisch-litterarisches Handwörterbuch.’
[135] Henri Joachim Dutrochet, born in 1776, was a member of a noble
family which belonged to the department of the Indre and lost its
property during the revolution; he therefore adopted medicine as a
profession, and took his degree at the Faculty of Paris in 1806. He was
attached to the armies in Spain as military surgeon in 1808 and 1809;
but he retired as soon as possible from practice and devoted himself in
great seclusion to his physiological pursuits, living for some years in
Touraine. He was made corresponding member of the Academy in 1819, and
communicated his discoveries to that body. Becoming an ordinary member
in 1831, he spent the winter months from that time forward in Paris.
He died in 1847 after two years’ suffering from an injury to the head.
Dutrochet was one of the most successful champions, in animal as well
as vegetable physiology, of the modern ideas which displaced the old
vitalistic school of thought after 1820. See the ‘Allgemeine Zeitung’
for 1847, p. 780.
[136] See above on page 513.
[137] Thomas Andrew Knight, President of the Horticultural Society, was
born at Wormsley Grange, near Hereford, in 1758, and died in London in
1838.
[138] See ‘Arbeiten des botanischen Institutes in Würzburg,’ vol. i. p.
99.
End of Project Gutenberg's History of Botany (1530-1860), by Julius von Sachs