Note i — BOOK X.
Reading edition
Vetus est Empedoclis dogma, Plantarum semina Ova esse, ab iisdem decidua——Inest in eo [Ovo vel Semine] velut in cicatrice, non sola viventis carina, sed cum minimo trunco assurgentes partes, Gemma scilicet, & insignis radicis Conus, &c. Malpig. ib. p. 81. vid. plura in tract. de Seminum veget. p. 14. & passim.
In Malpighi’s Life, a Debate may be seen between him and Seign. Triumphetti, the Provost of the Garden at Rome, whether the whole Plant be actually in the Seed. The Affirmative is maintained by Malpighi, with cogent Arguments; among which, this is one; Non præoccupatâ mente, oculis microscopio armatis, lustret quæso Phaseolorum, seminalem plantulam nondum satam, in quâ folia stabilia, hæcque ampla evidenter observabit; in eâdem pariter gemmam, nodos, seu implantationes varias foliorum caulis deprehendet. Caulem insignem fibris ligneis, & utriculorum seriebus constantem conspicuè attinget. And whereas S. Triumphetti had objected, that vegetatione, metamorphosi, inediâ plantas in alias degenerare, ut exemplo plurium [constat] præcipuè tritici in lolium, & lolii in triticum versi. In answer to this, (which is one of the strongest Arguments against Malpighi’s Assertion) Malpighi replies, Nondum certum est de integritate, & successu experimenti, nam facienti mihi, & amicis, tritici metamorphosis non cessit. Admissa tamen metamorphosi, quoniam hæc neglecta cultura, aut vitio soli, aut aëris contingit——ideo ex morboso & monstruoso affectu non licet inferre permanentem statum à Naturâ intentum. Observo plantas sylvestres culturâ varias reddi, &c. I have more largely taken notice of Malpighi’s Answer, because he therein shews his Opinion about the Transmutation of Vegetables. Vid. Malpig. Vit. p. 67.
So Mr. Lewenhoeck, after his nice Observations of an Orange-Kernel, which he made to germinate in his Pocket, &c. concludes, Thus we see, how small a Particle, no bigger than a course Sand (as the Plant is represented) is increased, &c. A plain Demonstration, that the Plant, and all belonging to it, was actually in the Seed, in the young Plant, its Body, Root, &c. Philos. Trans. Nᵒ. 287. See also Raii Cat. Cant. in Acer maj. from Dr. Highmore. But in all the Seeds which I have viewed, except the Maple, the Plant appears the plainest to the naked Eye, and also very elegant, in the Nux Vomica. Natura non observat magnitudinis proportionem inter semina & plantas ab iisdem ortas, ita ut majus semen majorem semper producat plantam, minus minorem. Sunt enim in genere herbarum non pauca, quarum semina arborum nonnullarum seminibus non dico æqualia sunt, sed multo majora. Sic v.g. Semina Fabæ, &c. semina Ulmi, &c. multis vicibus magnitudine superant. Raii ubi suprà, L. 1. c. 13.
Filicem reliquasque Capillares herbas Semine carere Veteres plerique——prodidere; quos etiam secuti sunt è Recentioribus nonnulli, Dodonæus, &c.——Alii è contrà, Bauhinus, &c. Filices & congeneres spermatophoras esse contendunt: Partim quia Historia Creationis, Genes. ii. 12. &c.——Hanc sententiam verissimam esse——autopsia convincit. Fredericus Cæsius, he saith, was the first that discovered these Seeds with the Help of a Microscope. And since him, Mr. W. C. hath more critically observed them. Among other Things observed by that ingenious Gent. are these, Pixidulæ seu capsulæ semina continentes in plerisque hoc genus plantis perquam exili granulo arenæ vulgaris cinereæ plus duplo minores sunt; imò in nonnullis speciebus vix tertiam quartamve arenulæ partem magnitudine æquant, vesicularum quarundam annulis aut fasciolis vermiformibus obvolutarum speciem exhibentes. Nonnulle ex his vesiculis 100 circiter semina continere deprehendebantur.——adeò eximiâ parvitate ut nudo oculo prorsus essent invisibilia, nec nisi microscopii interventu detegi possent.——Osmunda Regalis, quæ aliis omnibus Filicis speciebus mole——antecellit——vascula seminalia obtinet æquè cum reliquis congeneribus magnitudinis——quorum immensa & visum fugiens parvitas cum magnitudine plantæ collata——adeò nullam gerere proportionem invenietur, ut tantam plantam è tantillo semine produci attentum observatarem meritò in admirationem rapiat. Ray, ibid. L. 3. pag. 132. This W. C. was Mr. Wil. Cole, as he owneth in a Letter I have now in my Hands of his to Mr. Ray, of Octob. 18, 1684.