19 
among which were those of Icaria guttatipennis, Nectarina Lecheguana, Tatua morio, 
Polistes tepidus, P. Tasmaniensis, Vespa vulgaris, Apis mellifica, &c.: among the 
most remarkable was a nest of Polistes Tasmaniensis, in which a single central cell 
had been prolonged and carried to a considerable distance above the level of the sur- 
rounding cells; this prolongation was alleged to be hexagonal, and much use was 
made of this in the course of Mr. Smith’s argument. Mr. Bates, however, took issue 
with Mr. Smith on the hexagonality of this part, and declared it to be, in his opinion, 
as nearly circular-cylindrical as possible. In contradistinction to the “circular 
theory” expounded by Mr. Waterhouse at the previous Meeting, Mr. Smith’s might 
be termed the “ hexagonal theory,” but it will give a better idea of the main argument, 
if we denote his view of the construction of the cells as the “intentional theory.” The 
hexagonal form of cell was described as “the ground plan laid down by the Great 
Architect,” and the bees were the builders who carried out his designs: it was argued 
that both bees and wasps begaw instinctively and with a primary intention to construct 
hexagonal cells; aud so strong was the “ hexagonal principle” guiding them in their 
operations, that one wasp, Apoica pallida, not only built hexagonal cells, but occasion- 
ally formed the entire comb of a hexagonal shape. Reference was also made to the 
artificial bases or foundations for cells used by the German bee-keepers, such founda- 
tions being hexagonal ; and from this it was argued that these hexagonal ground-plans 
must be exactly such plans as bees were accustomed to erect their cells upon, or at all 
events that the fact of bees at once accepting the plan furnished them was strongly in 
favour of the supposition that bees when left to their own resources construct a pre- 
cisely similar basement. In fine, Mr. Smith could not regard bees and wasps as 
creatures that would instinctively construct circular-cylindrical cells, but whose labours 
always eventuated in the production of hexagonal ones; on the contrary, he regarded 
them as creatures that would instinctively construct hexagonal cells, and the hexagons 
actually produced were only the carrying into effect the original intention of the 
builders. 
Mr. Marshall (who was present as a visitor) asked Mr. Smith whether he thought 
a hexagonal foundation would be laid in a case where it was not in contemplation to 
form other cells in immediate juxta-position? or would a cell be hexagonal if there 
were no other cells adjoining to force it into that form? In his opinion, the hexagonal 
shape was due to the fact that there were other, as it were, competing cells around, 
and to the pressure of such competing cells on that whose form they thus determined : 
this also accounted for the fact that the exterior cells were circular. Competition and 
pressure were the causes of the hexagonal shape of the cell. 
Mr. Newman enquired to what extent Mr. Smith would carry his principle of 
intention? Would he apply it equally to the case of the larva-cells of Microgaster 
alvearius? Was it applicable to the aggregation of lenses in the eyes of insects? or 
could it afford any explanation of the hexagonal form of pillars of basalt ? 
Mr. Waterhouse thought he had, in his paper, anticipated and answered most, if 
not all, of Mr. Smith’s objections to the circular theory; he admitted, however, that 
the nest of Polistes Tasmaniensis presented a difficulty, but thought an isolated 
instance of unnatural formation was insufficient to overthrow the theory ; he admitted 
also Mr.Smith’s greater practical acquaintance with the nests of bees and wasps; but 
he considered the vice of Mr. Smith’s paper to be that it overlooked or did not give 
sufficient attention to the circular marginal cells: according to the “intentional 
theory,” the marginal cells ought to be as exactly hexagonal as the rest, but this was 
