112 Criticism of Myrmecophily 



doubt that the ants get food and lodging, but are the 

 peculiarities of the acacias in any way the result of 

 the presence of the ants? And are the ants as neces- 

 sary to the acacias as was at first believed? One irrev- 

 erent critic goes to the length of saying that "the 

 plant has no more need of the ants than a dog of fleas." 

 It is said that the ravages of the leaf-cutter ants have 

 been much exaggerated, and it is loudly hinted that 

 the protective prowess of the body-guard, in driving 

 off the leaf-cutters, leaves a good deal to be desired. 

 But it is in favor of the useful-partnership theory 

 that the Javanese fruit-growers stretch ropes from 

 one mango to another so that certain large red ants 

 can spread from tree to tree and form a standing 

 army to ward off the attacks of a very destructive 

 beetle. 



On the other side of the argument, however, is the 

 contention that the "cups of nectar" that Belt spoke 

 of do as much harm as good. They may victual the 

 standing army, but they also attract sweet-toothed 

 visitors who are anything but welcome. It is also 

 argued that these extra-floral nectaries are bound up 

 with the internal physiology of the plant — the work- 

 ing of the sugar-factory — and have no direct rela- 

 tion to the army of friendly ants. 



It is certain that the ants eat and enjoy "Belt's 

 corpuscles," but are these little food-bodies present 

 because there has been for ages a partnership with 

 ants? The truth will out, that many plants with no 

 partner-ants have little stalked glands with a secre- 

 tion containing protein, sugar, and oil. In some cases 



