26 



NATURE 



\Nov. II, 1875 



some occur from the shifting of the packing papers, and the 

 faces of two plates then coming in contact : — 



"H.M.S. Challenger, Yokohama, 15th June, 1875. 



" Sir, — It gives me great pleasure to acquaint you that the 

 dry plates supplied to this ship three years ago are working 

 well, being fully sensitive, notwithstanding the great trial that 

 they have been subjected to — extreme cold and heat. On some 

 plates I found damp spots on the film, which stain the picture, 

 and hence I discard them ; but, on selecting plates, I travelled 

 up 2,500 feet (where the wet process seemed impossible) and 

 obtained perfect negatives. I would suggest that more sub- 

 stance be placed between the plates, as I have found them 

 sticking together, and hence the same spots on each plate. I 

 am using your new developer, which works well. 

 "I remain, yours obediently, 



(Signed) "Jesse Lay, Photographer. 



"To Col. Stuart Wortley." 



If at any time any scientific worker may be contemplating 

 an expedition where highly sensitive dry photographic films 

 might be of use, I shall be glad to place my experience at 

 his disposal, and give him formulae on which he can thoroughly 

 and implicitly rely. H. Stuart Wortley 



Patent Office Museum, South Kensington, Nov. 8 



Bees and Clover 



In Nature, vol. xii. p. 527, it is stated that two nests of 

 English humble-bees have been sent out to New Zealand, and 

 that they are specially desired there for the purpose of fertilising 

 the common clover. I suppose the red clover is meant, as the 

 white is fertilised by the hive-bee, and the wonderful rapidity 

 with which it has spread over the Australian colonies proves 

 that it does not require any further assistance. 



The species of Bombus sent out is not mentioned in the para- 

 graph, and it is not likely that Mr. Frank Buckland would send 

 the wrong one ; but it is worth pointing out, as not being gene- 

 rally known, tliat the commonest of the humble-bees {Bombus 

 terresiris) does much more harm than good to many of our 

 flowers. I have for several years watched the humble-bees, and 

 I never saw this species go to the mouth of the corolla of the red 

 clover. As far as my experience goes, it invariably bites a hole 

 at the base of the iiower and extracts the nectar from that open- 

 ing, £0 that it is of no use in carrying the pollen from one flower 

 to" another. All the other species of humble-bees that I have 

 noticed go to the mouth of the flowers, and they alone are useful 

 in their fertilisation. 



The common scarlet-runner or pole-bean is entirely dependent 

 on the visits of bees for the fertilisation of its flowers, and I have 

 lately seen an instance where the attentions of Bombus terrestris 

 were mischievous and hurtful. A friend of mine, living near 

 Finchley, had a late sowing of scarlet-runners rendered barren 

 by their operations. The smaller humble-bees did not visit his 

 garden, and Bombus terrestris cut holes at the base of both the 

 expanded flowers and the unopened buds. The hive-bee with 

 some trouble, by pushing between the petals, can get at the 

 nectar and sometimes fertilises the flowers, but as soon as the 

 humble-bee commences to cut holes at the base it seeks for these 

 perforations as a readier means of access. 



At the beginning of the season some of the Bombus terrestris 

 will be seen visiting the flowers of the scarlet-runner in a legiti- 

 mate manner, but they soon learn that it is easier for them to 

 get at the nectary by cutting holes at the base, and later on their 

 acquired experience teaches them to attack the buds in the same 

 manner. Large gaping flowers such as the Nasturtium and the 

 Fox-glove are fertilised by this species, but to most of the narrow 

 tubular ones its visits are injurious. 



I hope therefore that it is not Bombus terrestris (the common 

 large yellow-banded kind) but some other species of the genus 

 that has been sent to New Zealand, and if so it will be a most 

 valuable addition to the fauna of the country should it be succes- 

 fully acclimatised. 



In sending humble-bees to a distant country I believe the best 

 plan would be to dig up the fertilised queens, in winter, out of 

 the ground where they hybemate, and forward them in their 

 dormant state packed in earth kept cool by ice. 



Cornwall House, Ealing THOMAS Eelt 



Cherry Blossoms destroyed by Squirrels 

 The very general interest exhibited in your columns some 

 time since in regard to the destruction of flowers by birds, leads 

 me to report the followiiig observation. 



I have noticed repeatedly here in New England that the 

 common red squirrel [Sciurus Hudsonius, Pall.) is extremely 

 fond of flowers, and I am inclined to believe that in this im- 

 mediate vicinity he destroys far more flowers than any bird. 

 The squirrel in question, though smaller than the common 

 squirrel of Europe {S. vulgaris, Linn.), bears a close resemblance 

 to the latter. We have field-mice also whose habits so closely 

 resemble those of the squirrel that it seems highly probable that 

 mice as well as squirrels often aid in the destruction of flowers. 

 For cherry blossoms in particular our squirrel has a well-nigh 

 insatiable appetite. 



Having lived for several years upon the edge of a consider- 

 able belt of woodland, I have been surprised to witness the 

 extent of the devastations of the squirrel in this particular, and 

 have watched their operations with no little interest. The 

 flower is bitten from its stalk precisely as a nut would be, and 

 held between the paws of the animal while the little ovary at 

 the base of the blossom is eaten. All this is the work of but a 

 moment, since the edible moi-sel is exceedingly minute. The 

 flower is then dropped to the ground, seemingly in a perfect 

 state, since the petals are untouched, and remain adhering to 

 the calyx. I have noticed that one squirrel working by himself 

 will destroy in this way two hundred blossoms or more in the 

 early morning of a single day. On examining the discarded 

 flowers it appeared that they were in no wise mutilated excepting 

 that the ovary had been bitten from the^pedicel in every instance. 

 Freshly opened flowers seem to be preferred. At all events the 

 very first blossoms of the spring are eaten, and the destruction 

 of flowers is largest in the early days of the blossoming. As 

 soon as the flowers have become somewhat mature, the squirrels 

 leave them, and they neglect the immature cherries also until 

 near the time of ripening, when they again attack them, both 

 for the sake of the fleshy part of the fruit and of the kernel. 

 With respect to the fruit, however, the squirrels are far less 

 harmful than birds, since the latter descend upon it in over- 

 whelming force. The red squirrel has long been detested by 

 American gardeners because of his destruction of pears, the 

 choicest of which he gnaws in two, for the sake of their seeds 

 merely, but I am ignorant whether anyone has hitherto called 

 attention to his fondness for the blossoms •f fruit-trees. 



I have occasionally noticed the rose-breasted grosbeak 

 {Giiiraca Ludoviciana, Linn.) plucking cherry blossoms, or 

 perhaps the unopened flower-buds, at the same time with the 

 squirrels, but the birds ate leaf-buds from an adjacent ash tree 

 as often as they ate the cherry flowers, and the number of 

 blossoms destroyed by the birds was insignificant in comparison 

 with the work of the squirrels. 



F. H. Storer 



Bussey Institution of Harvard University, Oct. 20 



Plagiarism 



A FRIEND has just called my attention to the letter of Mr* 

 Boyd Dawkins in last week's Nature under the head of 

 " Plagiarism. " Mr. Dawkins may have found out by this time 

 that he has made a mistake to my detriment, but I am bound to 

 reply to his letter. 



The map accompanying the article "The. Early Geography of 

 the British Isles" {Leisure //our, J vdy 1874), which Mr. Boyd 

 Dawkins says is a reproduction of one he published in 187 1, is 

 in reality the well-known map first issued by Sir Henry de la 

 Beche more than forty years ago, with the addition of hypotheti- 

 cal river-courses (indicated in the first instance by Mr, Godwin- 

 Austen) and submerged forests, the said river-courses having 

 since been more completely and strikingly pourtrayed by Mr. 

 Dawkins, whilst I have added to the submerged forests. 



The Leisure //our map is thus a composite production. 

 Beneath it, so far from there being no reference to its various 

 authors, are the words: "After Sir Henry de la Beche and 

 Mr. Godwin- Austen, F.R.S," (I regret to find Mr, Dawkins's 

 name is not placed on the map as well); whilst in the text of the 

 article are the words: "See a paper by Mr. Boyd Dav/kins, 

 F.R,S,, in '^Hardwicke's Popular Science Review ' for October 

 1871," 



I can only suppose Mr, Dawkins had not given due attention 

 to the /.eisure //our map and its accompanying article when he 

 wrote his letter off San Francisco. If he had, I disallow his 

 exclusive claim to the one hundred fathom line of the British 

 seas, the submerged forests, and (with the naodification above 

 mentioned) the hypothetical river-courses. 



8, Walterton Road, W., Nov, 8 Henry Walker 



