20 INTRODUCTION 
46. Ranunculus type. 
Ranunculus, Eranthis; Anemone nemorosa, trifolia, Hepatica, and ranuncu- 
loides; Agrimonia, Fragaria, Rubus, Potentilla, Geum; Hypericum perforatum, 
humifusum, montanum, and others; species of Geranium and Erodium; Scilla 
bifolia and autumnalis, and others. 
(ce) Small-flowered open arrangements (Apparecchi aperti, brachipetali). 
47. Small-flowered type. 
Many Alsineae (e.g. Stellaria media) and Cruciferae (e.g. Capsella Bursa- 
pastoris, Erophila verna), also Veronica, and so forth. 
These types of Flower Pollination established by Delpino, have been received 
with a considerable amount of hostile criticism, especially by Hermann Miller 
(‘ Weit. Beob.,’ III, p. 20). This investigator describes them as to some extent quite 
arbitrary, ‘It is obvious,’ he says, ‘that we cannot escape the unnatural, if we 
attempt to coerce the almost endless variety of floral forms into a definite number 
of sharply circumscribed types.’ Delpino, for instance, mentions the sixth or 
hydrangea type as being specially adapted for Cetonia and other lamellicorns, and 
yet numerous species of this type are chiefly visited by flies, bees with short 
proboscides, and by butterflies. Again, Delpino adduces Solanum Dulcamara as 
a beautiful example of the borage type (bella espressione del tipo). With regard 
to this, Hermann Miiller speaks in somewhat the following way (op. cit., pp. 20-2) : 
Borage is quite rightly regarded by Delpino as only adapted for pollination by 
bees, since bees alone are capable of clambering up from below into the downwardly 
turned flowers, and sinking the proboscis into the honey-bearing base of the 
blossom. It may also be correct that in all other flowers in which the anthers 
are borne upon short, stiff filaments, and enclose the conical style, bees are the 
necessary agents of cross-pollination. Delpino, however, does not content himself 
with establishing this, but brings together such varied flowers as Borago, Cyclamen, 
Solanum, Galanthus, Leucojum, and several foreign species under this one type. 
He explains away those instances where insects other than bees play an important 
part in crossing, as e.g. pollen-eating hover-flies in the case of our native species 
of Solanum, by affirming that their visits are purely accidental and without 
significance. 
In contrast to this severe judgment of Hermann Miiller’s, E. Loew very 
properly contends (‘Einfiihrung,’ p. 191) that the establishment and characterization 
of floral types by Delpino, must be regarded as one of the most suggestive and 
brilliant attempts towards the solution of a problem which, owing to its nature, 
must always remain open. Any hypothesis that may be advanced continually 
requires improvement and extension, according to the standpoint of science for 
the time being. 
Moreover, Delpino speaks like Knight, Darwin, and Hildebrand as to the 
great law of Dichogamy or Cross-fertilization (la gran legge della dicogamia o 
delle nozze incrociate). 
The work of Hermann Miiller?, ‘Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten 
? Heinrich Ludwig Hermann Miiller was born on September 23, 1829, at Miihlberg in 
Thuringia, and was the son of a minister (cf. the note on p. 9). In 1847 he attended the 
