1879. 



AND HORTICULTURIST. 



55 



doubt the correctness of Darwin's theory ?' " Mr. 

 H. says, " I was staggered but not yet convinced, 

 and resolved to keep a close watch on the shell- 

 snails ' that nature had placed in the mouths of 

 these insect-eating plants.' Very soon they re- 

 quired no magnifying glass to see them ; in three 

 weeks they had increased wonderfully in breadth 

 and stature ; in three weeks more the biters 

 were bitten, for the snails had eaten the fly-traps 

 almost completely up. Mr. Smith has probably 

 somewhat changed his base on the subject of 

 ' carnivorous plants,' particularly as regards 

 their use of shell-snails as an article of diet." 

 Does Mr. II. intend to convey the idea that the 

 Dionrea plants are not carnivorous, or only that 

 shell-snails are not consumed by them ? Evi- 

 dently the impression conveyed is that they are 

 not carnivorous, especially as he speaks of his 

 •'prejudices against a theory that seems to re- 

 verse the whole order of nature." Why does 

 not Mr. H. give all the facts? He had one hun- 

 dred plants which were " ' fed ' almost daily for 

 three months with flies and other insects." " In 

 this," he says, " I was assisted by one of my 

 neighbors, a gentleman of leisure, and one who 

 is well versed in many branches of natural sci- 

 ence." The conditions for observation in this 

 experiment were so favorable, it seems strange 

 that Mr. H. should not make public more of the 

 results. All that we get is that, in the opinion 

 of his friends and himself, the one hundred 

 plants, to which the flies and other insects were 

 given, were no larger or better looking, after 

 three months of such treatment, than the one 

 hundred plants which were screened so that no 

 insects could visit them. From the remarks 

 of Mr. H. we are in doubt whether the plants 

 did in any sense assimilate or " feed" upon the 

 insects. K'ow, the question is, did the plants 

 " feed" on the insects '■' If they did Mr. H. must 

 certainly know it ; he can tell us how long it 

 took a plant to consume a fly or other insect, 

 and what was the appearance of the surface of 

 the leaf while assimilation was progressing, if 

 such was the case. If the plants did not " feed" 

 on the insects, what became of the flies and 

 other insects that were placed on the plants 

 •' almost daily for three months," by Mr. H. with 

 the assistance of his neighbor? Three months 

 is ninety-one days ; each plant was fed " almost 

 daily *," making a liberal allowance for days they 

 Avere not fed, each plant must have received 

 say from seventy-five to eighty '" flies and other 

 insects." Xow, if these insects were not assimi- 



lated by the plants there must have been quite 

 an accumulation of them upon the leaves at the 

 end of the time. If sucli were the case why 

 should it have been expected that the plants 

 might have received any benefit from such treat- 

 ment, and why should Mr. H. be so careful as 

 never to have omitted " an opportunity to ask pro- 

 fessional horticulturalists their opinion" on this 

 point ? If the insects remained upon and about 

 the plants, unappropriated by them, this ends 

 the whole question — it could not have been sup- 

 posed that they had received any benefit from 

 the insects. On the other hand, if the plants 

 did " feed " upon the insects, the position of the 

 Darwins on this point is confirmed, and the 

 general drift of the conclusions of Mr. II. are 

 incorrect; again, it would be a fair deduction, 

 that the plants were nourished by the insects 

 even if, as Mr. H. says, '' the feeding did not 

 certainly fatten." The fed plants and' the non- 

 fed plants did equally well, showing that the}' 

 were able to procure their substance from the 

 unorganized matter of the soil (sand and sphag- 

 num), according to the usual " order of nature" 

 or from the organized animal matter of " flies 

 and other insects." The supply in either case 

 was sufficient for the maximum demand of the 

 plants ; and when a supply was received from 

 the insects a lessened dcuiand was made upon the 

 roots. 



It is a subordinate question whether, under 

 any circumstances, these plants will thrive better 

 with animal food than without it. It is to be 

 hoped, as "we are all after the truth in this 

 matter," that Mr. H. will have the kindness to 

 present all the facts in the case and then a pro- 

 per conclusion may, perhaps, be reached. 



ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ANDROMEDA 

 ARBOREA. 



BY :MR. JAMES TRUITT, ( IIAXUTE. NEOSHO CO., 



KANSAS. 



I w^as well pleased with your frontispiece in 

 the December number of Gardener's Month- 

 ly, the Andromeda arborea, and hope it will be 

 appreciated by the readers. It is a tree always 

 admired. It grew in great abundance on ni}' 

 old home farm in Kentucky. I have seen the 

 trees forty feet high without a limb, and then 

 with a top shaped like an umbrella ; but they 

 generally branch from the ground, and bloom 

 when quite small, Avhen they have a shrub-like 

 appearance, and are very handsome. When I 



