say on the more delicate anatomy, and especially on the nature of the solid framework of cell-membrane in the plant; imperfect and crude as their views on such points may be, yet they continued for more than a hundred years to be the foundation of all that was known about cellular structure; and when phytotomy took a new flight at the beginning of the present century, Malpighi’s and Grew’s scattered remarks on the union of cells with one another, and on the structure of fibres and vessels, were adopted by the later phytotomists and connected with their own investigations. If the views of Malpighi and Grew agreed in the main on the points here mentioned, yet the style and manner of the two were very different. Malpighi kept more closely to that which could be directly seen; Grew delighted in tacking on a variety of theoretical discussions to his observations, and especially endeavoured to follow the path of speculation beyond the limits of what was visible with the microscope. Malpighi’s account reads like a masterly sketch, Grew’s like an elaborate production of great and almost pedantic carefulness; Malpighi displays a greater formal cultivation, and deals with the questions with light touches, allusively, and almost in the tone of conversation. Grew on the other hand is at pains to reduce the new science to a learned and well-studied system, and to bring it into connection with chemistry, physics, and above all with the Cartesian philosophy. Malpighi was one of the most famous physicians and zootomists of his time, and treated phytotomy from the points of view already opened in zootomy; Grew too occupied himself occasionally with zootomy, but he was a vegetable anatomist by profession, and gave himself up, especially after 1688, almost exclusively to the study of the structure of plants with a devotion hardly to be paralleled till we come down to Mirbel and von Mohl.