484 BEES AND FLOWERS. 



to tlie theory of reciprocal adaptation are ova'rthrown. The bee lias 

 but one object, the pursuit of food, and all things -which aid him in it 

 are welcome. Usuall}^ the plant profits thereby; sometimes it sutlers. 

 On the other hand, the plant seeks only to assure its propagation and 

 all of its modifications tend only toward that goal. It is only indi- 

 rectly that the colors and perfumes are of advantage to insects; the 

 complicated flower, most favorable to the reproduction of the plant, is 

 to the bees an obstacle. The cleistogamous flowers give a striking- 

 proof of the independence of a plant so far as insects are concerned. 

 These tiny, feeble flowers are close-fertilized without any interven- 

 tion; insects never visit them. Found generally among normal floAv- 

 ers, they prove that plants seek by all possible means to render 

 fertilization inevitable. 



Claude Bernard has splendidly formulated this truth in an aphor- 

 ism quoted by M. Gaston Bonnier in his work on the nectaries: '' The 

 law of the physiological finality is in each individual l)eing and not 

 outside it; the living organism is made for itself; it has its own 

 intrinsic laws. It works for itself and not for others." It is not pos- 

 sible better to define the reciprocal adaptations which we have shown 

 exists between bees and flowers. It is by no means for the benefit of 

 the plant that the collecting ai)paratus of the bees is modified, but 

 only that the bee may better nourish itself. On the other hand, it is 

 to the distinct advantage of the plant and its propagation that flow- 

 ers are modified in shape, color, and odor. The insect has gained by 

 the conformation of the flowers; the flower by the visits of the insect. 

 But each of these beings has been evolved on its own account and 

 adapted itself, as pointed out by the illustrious Lamarck, to the vital 

 conditions of the world in which it lives. 



