BKIOS AND KI.OWKHS. 488 



MS (Iocs rxumicr. wlicii he oH'ci's jis an jiriiiiiiiciil ii<j;ainsl llic altiac- 

 tioiis of coloi- llicii- \ isils (o orccn catkins and lioiicv-sim'arcd I<'avcs, 

 that hccs allow thcnischcs to l>c uMiidcd hy all llicii- senses, and do not 

 depend on smell or sialit alone. 



It seems, then, (piitc certain that the honey hccs are atti-actcd hv 

 color in ilowers. hnt not so certain that color is an adaptation (d' the 

 plant to the insect. Althou<ih the latti'i- is believed by many ol' the 

 most distinguished natnralists it still wants conclnsive demonstration. 

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

 said [)ositi\'eIy. However this may be, both of these agents serve to 

 attract the bees and in this way favor the fertilization of the phan- 

 erogams. 



This is even nuire true of the variously coniplicat<>(l (lowers — the 

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

 petals. Granted that over and al)ove the attraction they exercise on 

 the bees, the color and i)erfume of a flower may play some ])art 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 infinite 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 through the present. 



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 colors and perfumes of 

 flowers may be, perhaps, the result of such an adaptation, but in any 

 case thej^ 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 adaptation 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 periods; it 

 can rarely be j^roved directly, and evidence regarding it is only to be 

 oi)tained l)v long comparative observations. 



However, it is almost unanimously conceded nowadays that the 

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

 ;'re beautifully adapted to the flowers, but, despite the fact that prac- 

 tice has shoAvn that plants are in every way more plastic than ani- 

 mals, it is still strongly disputed that the flowering plants have 

 adapted themselves to bees. 



If there does exist any reciprocal modification between the ]\felli- 

 fera aiul the flowering plants it is not at all necessarj^ to suppose that 

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

 evolved on its oAvn account. Explained thus, the many objections 



