live when placed in water.'* These are the animacules hitherto believed to be capable of existing only in the interior of animals; and since it was proved that they could live in water exposed to the atmosphere, as observed by Professor Müller, the principal argument in support of their spontaneous production fell to the ground. As another reason why we should not be too ready to arrive at conclusions which are at variance alike with reason and analogy, the Professor remarks, further on, that Ehrenberg discovered the real germs of the fungi and algæ or mould. "The propagation of these organic bodies was thus established; it was shown that by reason of the germs, or seeds of the mould, new mould can be produced."+ Yet, another fact is stated by Müller, which is very important in its bearing on the subject under consideration. "With_regard," he says, "to the infusory animalcules, their complicated structure was first discovered by Ehrenberg; he found that the smallest nomad, zu of a line in diameter, has a complicated stomach and organs of motion, in the form of cilia. In others he observed the ova and the propagation by ova. This excited the greatest doubt with regard to those earlier observations in which, the complicated structure of these animalcules being unknown, they were said to have been scen to originate in particles of the organic substance of the infusion.”‡ Thus it is that science, properly so called, sooner or later, dispels error; and no science has dispelled graver errors than physiology. But here we need only to allude to one; be it remembered that the principal atheistical works of ancient and modern times are founded on the error above exposed. Baron D'Halbach as well as Lucretius has founded this absurd theory on the assumption that in certain circumstances animalcules, and even larger beings, are produced without germs. Ridiculous though it may appear to those unacquainted with the facts, D'Halbach's System of Nature is based on a story that eels were produced spontaneously. Needham, an English chemist, distinguised much more for his love for the marvelous than for his skill in chemistry, pretended that, having put some rye-meal into well corked bottles, and some boiled mutton gravy into other bottles, each gave birth to eels which in turn produced other eels. Many even of those who called themselves scientific * Elements of Physiology. By J. Müller, M. D. Vol. i, p. 16. Ib. Vol. i, p. 19. † Ib. men believed the story; and having believed that chemistry and nature could make eels, they had little trouble in coming to the conclusion that men were made by a similar process, and consequently that there was no need for a universal Creator. We have already shown how Spallanzani proved by experiments the absurdity of all such stories as that of the eels, and how the most eminent physiologists and naturalists since his time have confirmed his views. But science is continually affording new refutations of the atheistic doctrine. It is a sufficiently strong argument against the chance theory, that all things that have life have several attributes and characteristics in common; this is true even of vegetables as compared to animals. M. Magendie, one of the most worthy of the disciples of Buffon and Cuvier, tells us in his valuable work that the chief differences between animals and vegetables are the ojllowing: "Animals have azote for the base of their composition, while Vegetables have carbon; Vegetables are composed of four or five elements; Animals are often composed of eight or ten; Animals are compelled to act upon their aliment, in order to render it suitable to nourish them, while Vegetables obtain their aliment around them ready prepared."* In discussing the same subject, another eminent physiologist remarks that "it is a great mistake to suppose that there is anything fundamentally different in the character of the vital operations as performed in the animal and vegetable structures, or in the simpler and more complicated organisms of either kingdoms." This does not remain a mere matter of assertion; it is a fact amply proved. Macaire has as fully demonstrated the circulation of the sap in vegetables as Harvey has that of the blood in animals, and the two circulations are precisely analogous in their nature and effects. Dr. Roget has also given us a fine essay on the food of plants. which he tells us consists of water, conveying along with it a certain portion of air and carbonic acid gas, and the earthy, saline and metallic ingredients which it holds in solution. He calls our attention to the absorption of this nutriment by the spongioles of the roots, and sometimes by every part of the surface of the plant; also the ascent of this food or * Précis Elémentaire de Physiologie. Par F. Magendie, Membre de l'Institute de France, &c. p. 15. + Carpenter's Principles of General and Comparative Physiology. Second edition. London. p. 4. sap in a crude state along the stem and into the leaves, traversing the ligneous substance of the stem chiefly, and in trees the alluvium or recently formed wood, and passing along the intercellular spaces. But this is not all. We are shown the exhalation of the purely aqueous part of the sap, and the stomata or pores of the leaves; the aeration of this sap by the action of solar light upon the leaves; then the return of the sap highly charged with nutriment along the lobes or innermost layers of bark and the alluvium or outermost layer of wood, depositing the different materials which are necessary for the growth and health of those parts of the plant, the same as the blood makes its deposits in passing through the structures of animals. Macaire has also proved that the vegetable, as well as the animal, is capable of excreting from its circulation such particles as are superfluous or noxious. Nor has that eminent physiologist confined himself to proving that. this excretion regularly takes place. He has also proved that when a plant has grown in any particular place so long that the noxious excretion has had time to accumulate, the soil becomes unsuitable for it; and if it is not transplanted to another soil it will decay and die, although the same excretion may be beneficial to other plants. These facts have been fully established by M. Macaire, and they are commented upon as follows by an English physiologist scarcely less eminent : "The roots of the Chondrilla muralis were carefully cleaned, and immersed in filtered rain-water; the water was changed every two days, and the plant continued to flourish and put forth its blossoms; at the end of eight days the water had acquired a yellow tinge, and indicated, both by the smell and taste, the presence of a bitter narcotic substance, analogous to that of opium; a result which was farther confirmed by the application of chemical tests, and by the reddish brown residuum obtained from the water by evaporation. M. Macaire ascertained that neither the roots nor the stems of the same plants, when completely detached and immersed in water, could produce this effect, which he therefore concludes is the result of an exudation from the roots, continually going on while the plant is in a state of healthy vegetation. By comparative experiments on the quantity of matter thus excreted by the roots of the French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) during the night and the day, he found it to be much more considerable at night; an effect which it is natural to ascribe to the interruption in the action of the leaves when they are deprived of light, and when the corresponding absorption by the roots is also suspended. This was confirmed by the result of some experiments he made on the same plants, by placing them, during daytime, in the dark, under which circumstances the excretion from the roots was found to be immediately much augmented; but even when exposed to the light, there is always some exudation, though in small quantity, going on from the roots. "That plants are able to free themselves by means of this excretory process from noxious materials which they may happen to have imbibed through the roots, was also proved by another set of experiments on the Mercurialis annua, the Senecio vulgaris, and Brassica campestris, or common cabbage. The roots of each specimen, after being thoroughly washed and cleaned, were separated into two bunches, one of which was put into a diluted solution of acetate cf lead, and the other into pure water, contained in a separate vessel. After some days, during which the plants continued to vegetate tolerably well, the water in the latter vessel being examined was found to contain a very perceptible quantity of the acetate of lead. The experiment was varied by first allowing the plant to remain with its roots immersed in a similar solution, and then removing it after careful washing, in order to free the roots from any portion of the salt that might have adhered to their surface, into a vessel with rain water; after two days distinct traces of the acetate of lead were afforded by the water. Similar experiments were made with lime water, and with a solution of common salt instead of the acetate of lead, and were attended with the like results. De Candolle has ascertained that certain maritime plants, which yield soda and which flourish in situations very distant from the coast, provided they occasionally receive breezes from the sea, communicate a saline impregnation to the soil in their immediate vicinity, derived from the salt which they doubtless had imbibed by the leaves. "Although the materials which are thus excreted by the roots are noxious to the plant which rejects them, and would consequently be injurious to other individuals of the same species, it does not therefore follow that they are incapable of supplying salutary nourishment to other kinds of plants; thus, it has been observed that the Salicaria flourishes particularly in the vicinity of the willow, and the Orobanche, or broomrape, in that of the hemp. This fact has also been established experimentally by M. Macaire, who found that the water in which certain plants had been kept was noxious to other specimens of the same species; while, on the other hand, it produced a more luxuriant vegetation in plants of a different kind."* But this paper has already grown too long; if, notwithstanding its length, there are many important physiological facts to which we have not been able even to allude, our apology is that we could not be expected to compress into one article details which have been found too numerous by several physiologists for many volumes. Impressed with this at the outset, our purpose has been simply to select from the boundless mass of facts such as seemed best calculated to combine interest with utility, and thus attract the attention of as many as we could to the study of a science with whose fundamental principles, at least, all should be more or less familiar. Trusting that our attempt has not been entirely in vain, it will afford us pleasure to recur to the subject on an early occasion, and consider in a separate article each of those branches which in the present paper have necessarily been only referred to in general terms. • Animal and Vegetable Physiology, &c. By Peter Mark Roget, M. D. ART. II.-1. Histoire physique, politique, et naturelle de l'ile de Cuba. Par M. RAMON DE LA SAGRA. Paris: 1864. 2. Apuntes para la Historia de la isla de Cuba. Por D. J. MARIA DE LA TORRE. Havana: 1857. 3. Essai politique sur l'île de Cuba. Par ALEXANDRE DE HUMBOLDT. Avec un Carte et supplément, &c. Paris. 4. To Cuba and Back. A Vacation Voyage. By RICHARD HENRY DANA, Jr. Boston. 5. Letters Written in the Interior of Cuba between the Mountains of Arcana, to the East, and of Cuseo to the West, &c. By the Rev. ABIEL ABBOT, D. D. Boston. THERE is no charge more frequently preferred against the American Republic than that it is too ambitious, too fond of annexation; at the same time no charge is less just. Both our people and our government have faults enough, but this is not one of them. Many of our European censors may smile at this, and wonder how we can deliberately make such a statement; but it is not the less true on this account. Nor shall we ask anyone to accept our assertion in regard to it any further than we can prove that it is correct. First, let us ask, what neighboring states has the Republic attacked during the whole period of its existence for the purpose of annexing them? The only one that can be pointed to under any pretext is Mexico; but no candid person who has made himself acquainted with the history of our war with that Republic would pretend for a moment that the love of conquest, or of annexation was our motive in engaging in it. If a portion of Mexican territory was annexed to this country at the close of the war, it has been duly paid for. We gave a large sum for it in hard cash-probably more than any other nation would have given at the time. This we would not have done had our disposition as a people been what it is represented; we could have annexed much more Mexican territory than we did without paying a penny for it more than the cost of the war. Nor would we have been satisfied with this. Were we the grasping, ambitious, filibustering people which it is the fashion in Europe to regard us we could have attacked Canada long since; and had we earnestly done so no statesman or general who has any approximate idea of our resources can doubt what would have been the result. The leading |