558 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



fright. If wo human folk arc sometimes 

 "too scared to move," why not the lower 

 animals also ? S. F. Goodrich. 



Geneva, Ohio, September 5, 1S83. 



INSECT FERTILIZATION OP FLOWERS. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : I have been reading Mr. Grant Al- 

 len's very interesting article in the October 

 (1S88) number of "The Popular Science 

 Monthly," and, with your permission, I wish 

 to set him right on a few points. On page 

 732 he says : " A wandering bumble-bee, on 

 dinner intent, poked his long proboscis into 

 pea-flower number one, and, after rifling it 

 of its honey, covered his hairy legs and 

 thighs, half accidentally, with abundant pol- 

 len." Why /ia(/' accidentally ? The bumble- 

 bee knows nothing about the needs of the 

 pea-family, and when it carries the fertilizer 

 from one blossom to another it does it alto- 

 gether unconsciously and 2'j/w% accidentally. 

 Then, again, on pate 736, he'says: "Now, 

 in the higher plants we get exactly the same 

 sort of combination. ... If we take any 

 annual plant, like the pea, and look when 

 and where the flowers are produced, we shall 

 see that they come as soon as the plant has 

 attained its full growth, and when the purely 

 vegetative reproductive impulse is beginning 

 to fail." This is not true. The pea begins 

 to blossom at least two weeks before it "has 

 its full growth. Many kinds of pea-plants 

 will be as tall again when they begin to de- 

 cay as they are when they begin to bloom. 

 And it is not the flowers of the pea-vine that 

 use up its strength and cause it to decay, 

 but the maturing and ripening of the seed. 

 Of course, the pollen must strike the pistil at 

 the right time, or no seed is the result, but 

 this pollen does not come in with any refer- 

 ence to the needs of the plant ; it comes to 

 answer the needs of the seeds. Again, on 

 page 739, in speaking of the hybrid orchids, 

 he says : " Some wandering bee, visiting a 

 flower of the yellow orchid at this spot where 

 I stood, had carried away on its head gummy 

 pollen-masses, and then, contrary to the com- 

 mon habit of bees (who generally visit only 

 one particular species of plant at a time), 

 had deposited them on the stigma of a neigh- 

 boring brown specimen. I suppose he was 

 a young and inexperienced insect, who had 

 not yet learned to avoid the bad practice of 

 mixing his honeys. From this chance fer- 

 tilization any number of hybrids had taken 

 their rise," etc. It is not true that bees only 

 visit one species of plants on each trip. Bees 

 will go from the red to the black-cap rasp- 

 berry and gather honey from both ; and from 

 our sweetest and best grafted apple-trees to 

 the green, bitter, wild crab. Because bees 

 and insects do go helter-skelter among the 

 flowers, we are always budding and grafting, 

 and arc never sure of any of our fruits that 

 come from the seed. To prove this, let any 

 one take some flour and stand among the 



red and black-cap raspberries where they 

 grow close together, when the bees are roar- 

 ing around them ; put some flour on a bee's 

 back, and then watch it go from blossom to 

 blossom. I think it must convince the most 

 skeptical of two things : First, that bees 

 work on different species ; and, second, that 

 bees know nothing, and care less, about the 

 good of the species. 



I say it is not true that bees work on the 

 same species while on a trip after honey or 

 pollen. I claim much more than this. They 

 work on the flowers of different families. 

 To prove this, go into a garden of flowers 

 during a dearth of nectar and watch the 

 bees go from flower to flower. They will 

 fumble around among the petals of any 

 blossom that contains either pollen ornectar, 

 mechanically and indiscriminately. 

 Respectfully yours, 



Mahala B. Chaddock. 

 Fremont, III., Noternberll, 1S83. 



WOMAN SUFFRAGE. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Mr. Cramer's condensed and categorical 

 criticism in your January issue, of my arti- 

 cle on this subject, which appeared in the 

 " Monthly" of last October, deserves a reply 

 from me, since his method is direct, and 

 some of the points he raises will bear fur- 

 ther ventilation. 



First, as to the physical inability of wom- 

 en to take part in the execution of the 

 laws. This I have thought, in common with 

 many other men, to be a sufficient reason 

 why women are not adapted for taking part 

 in government. We are reminded, in reply, 

 that but a portion of the male sex are re- 

 quired to serve in the army, and none be- 

 yond the age of forty-five years in this coun- 

 try ; and we are told (not for the first time) 

 that, if we disfranchise on this account, we 

 must deprive of the suffrage our most 

 thoughtful class of voters, our older men. 

 This answer is no doubt an honest one, be- 

 cause its refutation is so easy that it would 

 not be brought forward by any one who can 

 see the situation as it is. The situation is 

 simply this : that in all countries, notwith- 

 standing the forty-five-year limit in this 

 one, men will be called on to do military 

 service, when the case requires it, as long as 

 they can walk and carry a gun. Moreover, 

 it is not chiefly as soldiers that men are 

 liable to do duty in the execution of the 

 laws. Any and all men may be called on 

 by the sheriff of the county to serve as posse 

 comitatics. Moreover, all our civil govern- 

 ment rests on the police and judicial system, 

 and not a single one of the preliminary steps 

 in the process can be performed by women. 

 Not a man could be arrested, taken to prison, 

 taken to the court-room, or to punishment, 

 without a male police. Since women can not 

 act in any of these capacities, nor yet as 



