the perfecting of the seed; he regarded the male flower in
dioecious plants as a useless appendage.
Valentin, to whom Camerarius addressed his famous letter 'De sexu plantarum' in 1694, did his correspondent a disservice in publishing a short abstract of it, which contained some gross misapprehensions of the facts[1]. Alston in 1756 relying on these incorrect statements disputed the conclusions of Camerarius, and doubted the sexual importance of the stamens on very insufficient grounds. More reasonable doubts were suggested by a German botanist, Moller, who observed that female plants of spinach and hemp produced seeds even after the removal of the male plants, and appealed to the apparently asexual propagation of Cryptogams; these objections were answered by Kästner of Göttingen, who pointed to the fact that dioecious plants, the willow for instance, sometimes bear hermaphrodite flowers. The botanists in question would never have entertained these doubts, if they had read and understood the writings of Camerarius, or had been acquainted with the literature of the subject.
4. The Theory of Evolution and Epigensis.
We have already observed the influence of the theory of evolution on the doctrine of the fertilisation of plants in the case of Morland and Geoffroy. We learn more about it in the work, already quoted, of the philosopher Christian Wolff, 'Vernünftige Gedanken von den Wirkungen der Natur,' Magdeburg, 1723; it will be well to give his own words, for they will serve to show at the same time the amount of knowledge possessed by a cultivated and well-read man in the country of Camerarius and thirty years after the appearance of his treatise on the sexuality of plants. In the second chapter of the fourth part, which treats of the life, death, and genera-
- ↑ See Mikan, 'Opuscula Botanici Argumenti,' p. 180.
