BEES AND FLOWERS. 483 



as does Boiiuicr. wlicu he otfers as an ariiunienl apnust the attrac- 

 tions of eoh)r their visits to green catkins and honev-snieared leaves, 

 that bees aUow themselves to be guided by all their senses, and do not 

 depend on smell or sight alone. 



It seems, then, (juite certain that the honey bees arc attracted by 

 color in flowers, but not so certain that color is an adaptation of the 

 plant to the insect. Although the latter is believed by many of the 

 most distinguished naturalists it still wants conclusive demonstration. 

 Like the odor the adaptation does exist, but more than that can not be 

 said positivel}^ However this may be, both of these agents serve to 

 attract the bees and in this way fa\or the fertilization of the phan- 

 erogams. 



This is even more true of the variously complicated flowers — the 

 long-tubed corolla, the narrow spurs, the stamens covered by the 

 petals. Granted that over and above the attraction they exercise on 

 the bees, the color and perfume of a flower may play some part in the 

 adaptation of a plant, the same can not be said with regard to these 

 complications of the calyx and corolla. How can the inflnite variety 

 of these organs and their sometimes fantastic arrangement be 

 explained without recourse to the hypothesis of a reaction of the 

 plant toward the insect? This reaction began the day the first 

 insects visited the first flowers and is continued tlirough the jjresent. 



To summarize: (1) Nectar and the nectaries are certainly in- 

 tended primarily for the plant itself and do not prove an adapta- 

 tion of the flower to the insects. (2) The coloi-s and perfumes of 

 flowers may be, perha[)S, the result of such an adaptation, but in any 

 case the}'^ strongly attract anthophilian insects, signalling to them 

 the presence of booty, (o) In many cases, if not all, the complicated 

 forms of the flowers must be attributed to the ada})tation of flowers to 

 their visitors. 



Such is the state of our knowledge as it stands to-day, founded, I 

 think, on the closest observation and the best reasoning. In the very 

 nature of things adaptation requires long evolutionary })eriods; it 

 can rarely be proved directly, and evidence regarding it is only to be 

 obtained by long comparative observations. 



However, it is almost unanimously conceded nowadays that the 

 Mellifera, at least in so far as their collecting aparatus is concerned, 

 are beautifully adapted to the flowers, but, despite the fact that prac- 

 tice has shown that plants are in ever}' way more plastic than ani- 

 mals, it is still strongly disputed that the flowei'ing plants have 

 adapted themselves to bees. 



If there does exist any reciprocal modification between the Melli- 

 fera and the flowering plants it is not at all necessary to suppose that 

 one group has been modified for the benefit of the other. Each has 

 evolved on its* own account. Explained thus, the many objections 



