Vol. XIX. October, 1910. No. 5 



BIOLOGICAL BULLETIN 



EXPERIMENTS OX COLOR-VISK >N or THE 



HONEY BEE. 



C. H. TURNER. 



INTRODUCTION. 



Whether insects can or cannot di-tini;ui-h color- i- a mailer 

 of much theoretical importance, for the correct interpret. ui<>n 

 ol tin- n-l.iiion of insects to flowers depends upon thi- an-\\er. 

 Mo-t -indents of natural selection believed, at one time, that the 

 form- and colors of flowers were adaptations to insect \i-itoi>. 

 Lately i line lias been a reaction based on the general cmi-ensus 

 of opinion, among morphological entomo|o-i-i-, concerning the 

 poorness of insect vision. Kellogg 1 writes: "The fixed -hort focal 

 <li-iaiu-e, the incompleteness and lack of detail incident to a 

 mo-aic image, and the lack of accommodation 'onl\ partly pro- 

 vided f.,r l)\ the shifting of the peripheral pigment) to var\in^ 

 liijit intensity, which are admitted conditions of insect vision, 

 make it -eem difficult to account for the intricacy in pattern 

 common to man\ tlo\\ers on a basis of adaptation to animal 

 \ i-itor^ of -uch | r -eein- capacity as insects. 



"Experimental e\ idence touching this criticism is singularly 

 meaner \\heii one coii-ider- the importance of the subject. If 

 in-eci- can accnrateK di-i in^ni-h i'lors, and at some di>ta: 

 and can pen ei\ e the tine deiail> of color-pattern at a \vr\ -hort 

 di-iance. then the explanation of floral structure and pattern as 

 adaptation to in-ect \i-itors has -olid foundation for even the 

 ama/in.uK- lar-e and \aried results which il attempt- to explain: 

 if not, it i> hard to understand how the explanation i- \alid (at 



\ 1 . ".\im-ii.\m In-tvts." Ilriiry II"It ^S: Co., second LMlitimi. revised. 



-57 



