no ALFRED IV. BENNETT [august 



the most familiar and most striking is the abundance of the flowers, 

 growing either in great masses or remarkable for their large size and 

 brightness of colouring. This is exhibited in various ways. In the 

 first place, we may compare the alpine with the lowland species of 

 genera which are represented in both floras — for example, Aquilegia 

 alpina with our columbine ; Dianthus cdjpinus or glacialis with our 

 pinks ; Scutellaria alpina with our skull-cap ; Bartsia alpina with our 

 British species ; Myosotis alpestris with our forget-me-nots ; the Edel- 

 weiss with our cudweeds ; and many others that might be mentioned. 

 Or we may take genera that are exclusively or chiefly alpine, as far as 

 the European flora is concerned : — Gentiana, Primula, Pedicidaris, 

 Rhododendron, Soldanclla, Saxifraga, Scmpervivum, etc. These are 

 among the most familiar glories of the alpine flora. Or, again, we may 

 take genera common to high and low altitudes, but in which the alpine 

 species are characterised by the small flowers being so crowded 

 together as to make the masses of them very conspicuous from a 

 distance, such as Arabis, Silene, Moehringia, Draba, and many others. 



The advantage to alpine plants of the conspicuousness of the flower 

 is obvious. Although not so dependent as lowland plants on the pro- 

 duction of seeds for the perpetuation of the species — the great majority 

 of them being perennials — yet, like many of our own perennial plants, 

 trees and others, they do, as a rule, produce abundance of ripe seeds, 

 and for the carriage of pollen from the anthers to the stigmas they are 

 largely dependent on the visits of insects. Now, at great altitudes 

 winged insects are comparatively scarce, and it is obvious that a con- 

 spicuous and far-seen sign as to the locality where they can find their 

 honey must greatly increase the number of flower-visits which they can 

 pay in the course of a sunny afternoon. Mr. G. W. Bulman has 

 recently, in the pages of this journal, 1 ventured the opinion that four of 

 the keenest-sighted naturalists who have ever studied the phenomena 

 of plant physiology — Darwin, Wallace, Lubbock, and Hermann Muller 

 — are all mistaken in their interpretation of the function of colour in 

 flowers, and that insects are attracted to flowers mainly by the sense 

 of smell rather than by the sense of sight. My own observations, 

 which have extended over many years, lead me to range myself un- 

 hesitatingly on the side of those distinguished names. That insects 

 are, to a certain extent, attracted by the odour of flowers is undoubted. 

 But in the Alps this can only come into play to a very subordinate 

 extent. Very few alpine plants are strongly scented ; and, if they 

 were, owing to the strong winds that almost constantly prevail at those 

 Great heights, the scent would be almost useless in indicating its source 

 to insects. In the bright colour and large size or close crowding of 

 the flowers, we have, on the other hand, an obvious and admirable 

 adaptation to this end. 



But it does not by any means follow that the sole purpose of the 



1 Natural Science, Feb. ] 899. 



