OCTOBER 15, 1912 



655 



Even Lubbock suggests that the object of 

 their visits is a vain search for honey. The 

 school of which Mr. Lovell seems to be 

 a mild disciple insists that flowers require 

 insects to assist in their proioagation, and 

 therefore must attract insects; and those 

 which are the most attractive succeed best 

 in the struggle which is so essentital a part 

 of Darwin's theories. But we have the 

 order of cryptogams — ferns, etc., which 

 owe not one tittle to the insect world. 

 Sprengel says, "It seems that Nature is 

 unwilling that any flower should be fer- 

 tilized by its own pollen," and Mr. Lovell 

 mentions that Darwin discovered that fre- 

 (juent crosses increase the vigor and pro- 

 ductiveness of the stock, and that an oc- 

 casional cross is indispensable. 



But, on the other hand. Sir John Lub- 

 bock admits that the majority of flowers 

 have retained the power of self-fertiliza- 

 tion; and not only, indeed, have they re- 

 tained the power, but their vigor and vital- 

 ity are hardly rivaled by any crossbreds. 

 The "lady's smock" (Cardamine pratensis) 

 is prolific to a remarkable degree, and 

 its flowers are incapable of fertilization. 

 The Herefordshire "red streak" has ex- 

 isted now for close on to three centuries in 

 spite of the fact that it is self-propagating ; 

 and there is not the faintest hope of its 

 being' rapidly exterminated, let alone dy- 

 ing out. The lesser celandine {Banunciilus 

 ficaria) indulges in a wealth of blossoms, 

 and appears in early spring when very 

 few insects are astir. It contains not a 

 single ripened head, and yet it multiplies 

 prolifically. These instances surely upset 

 Darwin's "Natui-e abhors perpetual self- 

 fertilization." For a cross we require two 

 plants; but in the case just cited we have 

 not even two distinct organs. Those flow- 

 ers which are propagated by buds and 

 slips evince no disposition to realize Dar- 

 win's dream of their extinction; and, in 

 spite of Nature's alleged abhorrence, they 

 hold the fort. 



On page 54, Jan. 1.5, Mr. Lovell says 

 that "occasionally irregular flowers revert 

 to ancestral stages and produce regular 

 forms." "Occasionally," Mr. Lovell? What 

 of the law discovered by Mendel? Some 

 forty years ago George Mendel made his 

 classical experiments with the common 

 garden pea, in the case of Avhich he abun- 

 dantly proved a return to the parental 

 forms. He experimented with seven pairs 

 of characters which he crossed and left 

 to self-fertilize. In the case of the cross- 

 ing of the tall and dwarf pea he found 

 that the first generation exhibited the char- 

 acters of one parent only — that is to say. 



all were tall. But the tall form, although 

 for the time being subduing the dwarf, 

 did not destroy its vital principle, which 

 remained potentially in the tall form. In 

 the second generation the dwarf parentage 

 asserted itself, and 75 per cent displayed 

 the dominant features (those of the tall), 

 and 25 per cent those of the dwarf. The 25 

 per cent bred true to their dwarf ancestral 

 type constantly and invariably. The 75 

 per cent bred 25 per cent true to their 

 tall parent, the remaining 50 per cent being 

 impure dominants. With these 50 per 

 cent the history of their ancestors repeats 

 itself. Here, then, the irregiilar form un- 

 mistakably "reverted to ancestral stages 

 and produced regular forms." 



On page 53 "beautiful flowers," and on 

 page 239, April 15, "highly colored flow- 

 ers,"- are designed for insects, and exist 

 only where they can behold them. Where 

 is there a more highly colored flower than 

 the poppy? and yet it contributes not one 

 iota of nectar to its insect visitors. If a 

 casual connection between the gaudy-col- 

 ored flowers and the insect world is to be 

 established, or if they can in any way be 

 said to be correlated, it seems that the 

 flowers which have not the Avealth of color, 

 and which, consequently, have not been de- 

 signed for insects, sliould not have any 

 claim to their patronage; yet the common 

 mignonette, the least likely to appeal to 

 one's esthetic taste, and in which Nature 

 has certainly not been prodigal of her 

 paint, is most popular in the bee world. 

 So also clover — perhaj^s the gi'eatest honey- 

 plant on earth. Still further is this state- 

 ment of Mr. Lovell's controverted by the 

 unobtrusive sycamore and lime (basswood) 

 trees. On page 313, May 15, Mr. Lovell 

 lets slip the statement that white flowers 

 Ijrobably exceed all others in importance 

 to beekeepers, which seems a little incon- 

 sistent in the face of his opinion on high- 

 ly colored flowers just referred to, and in 

 view of his reference to blue flowers on 

 page 239 and 241, April 15. Blue flow- 

 ers are not pre-eminently honey-bearing. 

 In a vast acreage of blue hyacinths we do 

 not see as many bees as in the inconspicu- 

 ous and unpretentious green tassels of the 

 sycamore. Heather and mignonette com- 

 pare more than favorably with the speed- 

 wells and harebells, and even with the 

 sage. 



Here, too, is a very peculiar fact : The 

 violet is blue alike in summer and spring. 

 Why, then, is the spring violet popular 

 with insects when the summer ones are 

 denied the courtesy of their \asits? Why, 

 further — and tliis is a serious difficulty to 



