FERTILISATION OF OPIIKYS APIFEKA 2S7 



fringe of long red hair and the blue metallic sheen of the centre, 

 suggestive of reflections from closed wings. This seems to furnish 

 a clue to the well-known resemblance of the lip to an insect in 

 O. apifera, O. muscifera, etc. Darwin mentions that Gr. E. Smith 

 says (Cat. Plants S. Kent, 1829, p. 25) : " Mr. Price has frequently 

 witnessed attacks made upon the Bee Orchis by a bee, similar to 

 those of the troublesome Apis muscorum" and adds " what this 

 sentence means I cannot conjecture." In the light of M. Pouyanne's 

 discovery Mr. Price's observation becomes at least intelligible, and 

 was probably correct. 



Darwin much overstated the case when he said (Cross and Self 

 Fert. p. 439) that O. apifera has "almost certainly been propagated 

 in a state of nature for thousands of generations without having been 

 once intercrossed." He was much nearer the truth when he wrote 

 (Fert. Orch. ed. 2, p. 58) : " from the structure of the flowers of 

 O. apifera it seems almost certain that at some former period they 

 were adapted for cross-fertilisation, but that failing to produce a 

 sufficiency of seed they became slightly modified so as to fertilise 

 themselves." He sums up by saying " The whole case is perplexing 

 in an unparalleled degree, for we have in the same flower elaborate 

 contrivances for directly opposed objects" (I.e. 57). It would be 

 nearer the truth to say two different contrivances to secure the same 

 object, i. e. the fertilisation of the flower, preferably by pollen from 

 another flower, failing that, with its own. He does not appear 

 to have realised the possibility of two concurrent methods of pollina- 

 tion in the same flower, and seems to have overlooked the fact that 

 in other orders provision is made for self -fertilisation if cross-pollina- 

 tion fails to take place. 



O. apifera presents a case of a flower organised for cross-pollina- 

 tion by insects, which has been endowed with or acquired the 

 faculty of self -fertilisation, not in replacement of, but in addition to, 

 its original capability of cross- pollination. It is not a case of 

 reversion to a method of pollination in existence prior to adaptation 

 for insect-visits, but of modification of the mechanism for insect- 

 pollination itself, so as to ensure self-fertilisation if insects fail to 

 visit the flowers. It is not retrogression, but a step in advance. 



The maintenance in efficient working-order of the highly specialised 

 mechanism proves that it has not fallen into universal disuse, and 

 the occurrence of natural hybrids is an unanswerable refutation of 

 the idea that the plant is now wholly self -fertilised. M. Pouyanne's 

 discovery as to O. speculum makes it quite probable that the resem- 

 blance of the flowers of Ophrys to certain insects serves as a lure 

 to attract the males of the species in question, and is not merelv the 

 offspring of popular imagination. It would be well worth while, for 

 those who live where O. apifera is abundant, to endeavour to confirm 

 or refute Mr. Price's observation. 



