Since ’tis unreasonable to believe, that Water can have such extraordinary Skill in Botany, or in Micrography, as to be qualified for a sufficient Agent in such an abstruse Matter, I conceive Water to be only an Instrument or Vehicle, which takes up indifferently any Particles it meets with (and is able to carry), and advances them (or the _Pabulum_ they yield) up into the First Plant, whose Root it comes in Contact with; and that every Plant it meets with does accept thereof, without distinguishing any different Sorts or Properties in them, until they be so far introduc’d and advanc’d up into the vegetable Vessels, that it would be in vain to distinguish them; for whether the terrestrial Matter, Plants imbibe with the Water, will kill or nourish them, appears by its Effects; but which cannot be foreknown or prevented without the Help of Faculties, which Plants are not endow’d with. Mr. _Bradley_ seems to have carried this Error farther than any Author ever did before; but he supports it by Affirmations only, or by such Arguments (I cannot say Reasons; for no Reason can be against any Truth) as go near to confute the very Opinion he pretends to advance by them. He ascribes to Vegetables the Sense of Taste, by which he thinks they take such Nourishment as is most agreeable to their respective Natures, refuting the rest; and will rather starve, than eat what is disagreeable to their Palate. In the Preface to his _Vol._ I. _Page_ 10. of his _Husbandry_ and _Gardening_, he says, ‘They feed as differently as Horses do from Dogs, or Dogs from Fish.’ But what does he mean by this Instance, _Vol._ I. _p._ 39. _viz._ ‘That Thyme, and other Aromatics, being planted near an Apricot-tree, would destroy that Tree?’ Does it not help to confirm, that every Plant does not draw exactly the same Share of Nourishment? I believe there is no need for him to give more Instances to disprove his Assertion than this one. His Conclusion, taken by itself, is so far right; _viz._ ‘That if the Nourishment the Earth afforded to the Thyme and Apricot-tree, had been divided into Two Shares, both could not have had them.’ But this his Instance proves, That those Aromatics robb’d the Apricot-tree of so much of its Share as to starve it; and that they, tho’ of so very different a Nature, did draw from the Earth the same Nourishment which the Apricot-tree should have taken for its Support, had not the Aromatics been too hard for it, in drawing it off for their own Maintenance: Unless he believes, that all the Juices of the Aromatics were as Poison to the Apricot; and that, according to my Experiment of the Mint, some of their Roots might discharge some kind of Moisture in dry Weather, given them by others, that had it for their Use; and that the Apricot-roots, mingling with them, might imbibe enough of that Liquor, altered sufficiently by their Vessels, to poison and kill the Tree.