HARDWJCKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP, 



109 



sort of collusion between the simple flowers and 

 certain over-clever, i.e. more highly-developed, longer- 

 tongued insects, the former by degrees developed 

 complexity and difficulty out of simplicity and facility ; 

 and all, as it would appear, that the longer-tongued 

 insects might be favoured — gain an advantage, to the 

 detriment of the shorter-tongued. As the result of 

 this immoral compact both flower and insect become 

 — so it is asserted — simultaneously more highly- 

 developed — specialised. Specialised for what ? Can 

 it be proved, or are there sound reasons for believing, 

 that this specialisation would in anywise tend more 

 to the perpetuation or preservation of the flower? 

 might we not rather reasonably infer, that there were 

 infinitely greater chances of its continuance when 

 visited by one hundred long- and short-tongued 

 insects than when visited by but ten long-tongued ? 

 What grounds, it may be pertinently asked, what 

 grounds have we for assuming that of long- and 

 short-tongued insects the former produced a greater 

 number of intelligent individuals than did the latter ? 

 'Tis as purely gratuitous an assumption as could 

 possibly be met with, and even if it were actually 

 proved, what special advantage would it be to them 

 that what at one time was procured without difficulty 

 must now be obtained only after greater trouble ? 

 Simply, in short, that they now acquire the whole of 

 that once shared with their short-tongued congeners, 

 and thus, it is assumed, gain an advantage at the 

 expense of those less intelligent — which, I suppose, 

 is just what the advocates of the theory contend. 

 T5ut their opponents argue, that we have no proof 

 whatever that the long-tongued ever did produce 

 more intelligent individuals than the short-tongued, 

 and that, even if it were so, the honey being equally 

 accessible to all, in the struggle for existence the 

 superior intelligence of the former would in the long 

 run certainly have given them a manifest advantage 

 over the less intelligent, without it becoming necessary 

 that the structure of the flower should undergo what 

 practically amounts to complete, though gradual, 

 transformation — metamorphosis. 



Looked at from this point of view, the position 

 becomes thoroughly untenable ; nor does it appear a 

 ■whit less so when viewed from any other standpoint. 



Suppose it be assumed — and we have just as much 

 right to assume this as the upholders of the theory 

 have to assume the contrary — that the short-tongued 

 produced a greater proportion of intelligent in- 

 dividuals than did the long-tongued. How would 

 the case then stand ? 



But this is not all, for we have not only plants 

 with verdant foliage and flowers of brilliant hues, 

 but, also many with richly-coloured foliage and 

 flowers inconspicuous, both as regards colour and 

 size. By what process of insect selection have these 

 colours been evolved — can the selectionists tell us ? 



What of the thousand bright-hued fruits which 

 appear when the flower has perished? the purple 



plum, the ruddy cherry, the golden orange. What, 

 too, of such seeds as Abrus precatorius, and a hundred 

 others ? bear their colours any relation whatever to 

 the colours of the flowers producing them ? What 

 again of those humble members of the vegetable 

 kingdom ycleped "weeds," which garnish with 

 beauty the profundities of ocean — the rich-hued 

 Fuci? What, moreover, of the vividly- tinted pileus 

 of the lowly Agaric? The hues of many of these 

 fungi almost outrival the brightest-coloured flowers, 

 and well has it been said that the effect of a sunbeam 

 resting upon the vivid surface of Agaricus muscarius 

 "might lower the pride of many a patrician 

 vegetable." Nor is this all : what of yet humbler 

 forms ? What of the Palmella nivalis^ which suffuses 

 with crimson blush earth's snowy bosom in Arctic 

 regions — and gelatinous masses which in a single 

 night spring up — emeraldine, rubeous, golden ? Yea, 

 verily, upon the humblest forms hath been lavished 

 a wealth of gorgeous hues. And can it be argued 

 that the highest forms were created destitute of their 

 most attractive features, until fortuitously visited by 

 the wandering bee? Myth worthy of arm-chair 

 theorists ! 



Nor can it be proved — nor indeed is there the 

 vestige of plausibility in the statement — that bees pre- 

 fer blue to other coloured flowers. I emphatically 

 assert that — so far as my individual experience goes 

 — such is not the case. If it be asked what 

 proofs I can adduce in support of this sweeping 

 assertion, I answer that, not only every observant 

 bee-keeper has daily evidence of its truth, but that 

 even my humble testimony is worth something ; and 

 that without usurping the distinction of being written 

 down an authority on the subject, I venture to think 

 that I may present my credentials with a very good 

 grace, seeing that my observations, which have been 

 made in the field, the orchard, and the garden, 

 extend over half a century — that I have kept, 

 probably, one of the largest apiaries ever managed 

 by a single person — and that, lastly, for six years I 

 literally lived in the midst of my pets, watching and 

 tending them at all hours and in all seasons ; and 

 most unhesitatingly I repeat, that hive-bees make 

 no choice of blue over other colours ; that is to say, 

 where honey is generally abundant. Of course, where 

 within a certain radius of an apiary there are to be 

 found a majority of blue honey-yielding flowers, there 

 will bees most abound — not otherwise. 



Indeed it may be asserted that, as a general rule, 

 blue flowers contain less honey than others — a notable 

 exception being Borage, which is greatly affected 

 both by honey and humble-bees. 



Quite recently, I read in a periodical the astound- 

 ing statement, that there are a greater profusion of 

 blue than other coloured flowers. The assertion 

 perhaps scarcely needs refutation, nevertheless, as a 

 matter of curiosity, I have gone very carefully over 

 the seed lists of two of our largest floriculturists. 



