260 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



to aflopt the theory that the development of the different flower colors 

 alvvjiys originated from the same primal color, and surely the series 

 of the developed colors was not always identical." 



I am not prepared by my studies to object altogether to the state- 

 ments of such prominent authorities. But it is well known that 

 plants and animals excluded from light are more or less colorless. 

 Secondly, the number of plants with highly colored flowers which are 

 not fertilized by insects will exceed, perhaps largely, those fertilized by 

 insects. The horticulturists produce year after year in greenhouses 

 new varieties, with larger and more brilliantly colored flowers, but 

 certainly not through fertilization by insects. 



During the summer of 1881, chrysanthemums were prepared for a 

 flower exhibition in Boston by a thoroughly experienced and scientific 

 horticulturist. He had kept purposely plants, cuttings from one and 

 the same plant, partly in sunlight, partly not in the dark, but without 

 sunlight. The effect was so striking, that later the judges would not 

 accept as a fact that both kinds came from the same stock. The 

 plants kept in sunlight showed the most brilliant colors, the other 

 were pale and very little colored. 



I am not able to understand how this fact could be brought about 

 without acknowledging the influence of light. I quote only this 

 case, though every horticulturist may be able to give similar ones, 

 because the experiment was made purposely, and is doubtless reliable. 

 I think science will need a plausible explanation of such experiments, 

 proving that sunlight was not the acting factor, before the statements 

 of even such a prominent authority as Professor Sachs can be 

 accepted. . 



The bleaching of the colors of insects by chloride of lime or by 

 certain solutions of it is proved by Dimmok's experiments (Psyche, 

 No. 17, 1875), and by my own recorded before. Perhaps chemical 

 investigation made in a more varied manner, and the use of less 

 strong chemicals, will some day throw more light upon the nature of 

 colors. An interesting observation may here be noticed (J. W. 

 Wilson : Chemical Change of Coloration in Butterflies ; Psyche, No. 

 75, 1880). In coloring a proof plate of Limenitis arthemis for the 

 well-known book by Mr. W. H. Edwards, the insect was inclosed in 

 a shallow glass box, and Miss Peart, the artist, had fastened a bit of 

 cotton inside with a little undiluted carbolic acid. When the plate 

 was sent to Mr. Edwards, rich purple had been painted where the 

 insect is metallic blue or green. The colors of the type had been 



