Mind in Plants. By W. LAUDER LINDSAY, M.D., F.R.S.E., F.L.S.

In studying, during the last five years, the phenomena of Mind in the Lower Animals, I have encountered as great difficulty in drawing any definite or definable Psychical Line of Demarcation between Plants and the Lowest Animals as between the Higher Animals and Man. In other words, it appears to me that certain attributes of mind, as it occurs in Man, are common to Plants. The only alterative is the omission from our conceptions and definitions of Mind of certain phenomena common to plants with all classes of animals, including man -those, namely, that do not involve what we distinctively call consciousness. But the difficulties of such an elimination seem to me insuperable.

What I hold to be a certain Community of, or in, Mind between Plants and Animals-in so far as concerns its lower or rudimentary manifestations-is, I think, of sufficient interest and importance to deserve special study in connection more particularly with the surprising results recently recorded by Naturalists as to the behaviour, under certain circumstances, of Insectivorous or Carnivorous Plants.*

My present paper is intended simply to indicate to those who may have the necessary time to devote to such an inquiry, and who are favoured with due opportunities of residence or otherwise, some of the physiologico-psychical bearings of the subject of Plant-mind. What I now offer is, not an exhaustive essay, but a mere sketch or outline, the details of which may be filled up by the reader with the aid of the most recent works on Physiological Botany-especially those of Germany.†

In my own inquiries on the subject of what has been, by various authors, described as "Instinct" in Plants-inquiries which have arisen, in consequence of my non-access in a country residence to the latest works on Vegetable Physi

* As described (e.g.) by—

(1.) Darwin: "Insectivorous Plants," 8vo., illustrated, London, 1875. (2.) Hooker: Address on the same subject, before the British Association at Belfast, 1874, and reported at length in "Nature," for Sept. 3, 1874.

(3.) Balfour (Dr. Thomas A.G., of Edin.), in the "Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edin.," for 1875; as well as in the "Garden," for Aug., 1875, and in "Chambers's Journal," for Aug., 21, 1875. For instance (1) the English translation of Sachs; or of (2) Le Maout and Decaisne; (3) the first vol. of Brown's "Manual;" or (4) the larger Manuals of Professor Balfour.

ology-I have met with no assistance from British Botanists, who are, for the most part, mere collectors and nomenclators of plants, or rather of new forms thereof-real or supposed. The only one of them who took the trouble, indeed, of even replying to my queries was Prof. Thiselton Dyer, of Kew, who wrote me in May, 1875:-" Instinct in Plants appears to me an altogether meaningless expression. The most recent allusion I have met with to it is in Observations on the Phenomena of Plant Life,' by W. S. Clark, Boston, U.S.A., 1875." Just as in the case of animals and of man himself, however, until a better term is introduced, Instinct is a convenient designation for a group of phenomena usually considered mental, or, at least, associated with our ideas of mind, and which cannot as yet be assigned to what we call reason or intelligence.

There is ground to fear that few of our Botanists are sufficiently acquainted with, or devoted to, Vegetable Biology or Physiology to be capable of dealing with phenomena of such a kind as those which, in plants, appear to belong to the category of mind-unless and until that comprehensive term be redefined so as to be applicable exclusively-should this be possible to man or to animals. Moreover, some Botanists are influenced, apparently, by that most contemptible form of ignorance and bigotry which refuses to believe, or even to examine, facts, or to accept words, names, or phrases that seem to militate against their baseless religious preconceptions and misconceptions. They have acquired or assumed, as an article of their creed, that Mind is a prerogative of man alone; and hence they scout the very idea of its occurrence even in other animals, and far less, therefore, in plants. Unfortunately, this kind of error is not confined to Botanists. It is almost incredible to what extent such a form of religious intolerance and fanaticism prevails in the present day, even among persons of the highest education and social or professional position: among, for instance, the teachers of our youth, and the leaders of public opinion, in our Universities.

It may be desirable, in the first place, to point out that there is no a priori improbability that Plants possess certain characters of Mind in common with animals. They possess, in common many other physiological functions-some of them hitherto or long regarded as peculiar to animals. These

I. Concomitants of Mind, as it occurs in Animals-which are nevertheless, common to Plants-include the following functions or phenomena: