POLLINATION OF THE BRITISH PRIMULAS. 115 
HEMIPTERA. 
Drymus brunneus Sahlb. 
Tsopopa, 
Oniscus asellus L. 
Porcellio scaber Latr. 
ORTHOPTERA. 
Forficula auricularia N.; common ; feeding on pollen. 
THYSANOPTERA. 
Tæniothrips ? sp.* 
Without doubt, many other nocturnal “ visitors”? of this kind might be 
observed. I have myself frequently seen signs that slugs or snails had eaten 
both anthers and petals, as shown by their slime left on the latter and the 
mutilation they had effected +. Occasionally, too, I have found a small grub 
in the corolla-tube, apparently about to pupate therein. But, of these and 
of other similar accidental visitors, I have taken no account 1. 
TABLE II. —Cowsup (P. veris). 
Olona Date, Locality and Insect Visitors observed. 
| 
— 
1882. 
April 19. | Railway bank, Newport, Essex.—A reddish Humble Bee (Bombus sp.) visited 
several flowers. 
2, May 5. | Meadow, Roxwell, Esser.—Watched a considerable time, surrounded by a large 
number of flowers, without seeing a single Bee visit them, though the day 
was warm and Bees were busy visiting other flowers around. 
3. May 6. | Meadows, Roxwell, Essex.— Watched similarly, among many flowers, in 
several places, but saw only one single large striped Humble Bee (Bombus ? 
sp.), which visited a number of flowers on a cluster beside a ditch, but left 
when I tried to capture it. 
l. 
1883. 
4, May 1. | Roadside hedge, Tilbury-by-Clare, Essex.—A Sulphur Butterfly (Gonepteryx 
rhamni), searching diligently for flowers of any kind, visited one Cowslip 
flower, took a Jong flight, returned, visited 10 more Cowslip flowers, but left 
when I tried to capture it. 
* Mr. Dallman regards all the foregoing as * visitors” to the Primrose. To me, it seems 
that one might as well include the wandering cow which casually gobbles up half a plant 
and, in so doing, by shaking the flowers (as a passing rabbit might also do), may accidentally 
pollinate some of them to some slight extent. 
+ See Trans. Essex Field Club, iii. (1884), p. 194. 
t Prof. Weiss has expressed his belief (see New Phytol. ii. p. 104) that the Primrose may 
be pollinated to acertain extent by the agency of the wind. The Rev. E. Bell has expressed 
(* Primrose and Darwinism,’ pp. 90 & 166) a somewhat similar view. I believe, however, 
that, in the case of all the three Primulas in question, the amount of pollination (if any) 
effected by the agency of the wind is so small as to be wholly negligible. 
12 
