May 13. 1875] 



NATURE 



25 



cubit of 17-5 inches, divided into twenty-four digits, is also 

 almost identical with the ancient Egyptian natural cubit 

 of six palms and twenty-four digits. But it appears to be 

 now impossible to determine whether these Indian units 

 were derived from the Egyptian, or both from an earlier 

 common source ; although we may fairly assume that this 

 natural cubit was of the same length as that used by Noah 

 before the Deluge. Mr. Thomas's hypothesis of the 

 lesser Indian unit of weight and of length, and of the 

 scale of multiples and parts, is, however, probably cor- 

 rect, as being derived from natural and local sources. 



OUR BOOK SHELF 

 Arboretum et Fleuriste de la Ville de Paris. Description 

 culture et usage des Arbres, Arbrisseaux et des Plantes 

 herbac^es et frutescentes de plein air, et de serres, 

 employees dans I'ornementation des Pares et Jardins. 

 Par A. Alphand. Folio, pp. 1 10. (Rothschild, Paris.) 

 Ornamental gardening, among other things that added 

 to the attractions of the city of pleasure, was greatly 

 fostered during the latter part of the reign of Napoleon 

 III., and does not appear likely to languish under 

 the Republic. The magnificent publication, " Les Pro- 

 menades de Paris," by the author of the book now 

 before us, is a costly work, known to comparatively few 

 people in this country. We presume that the present 

 volume is regarded as an appendix or supplement to the 

 work named, otherwise we cannot account for the publi- 

 cation of what is little more than a catalogue of names in 

 so unwieldy a form. 



An enumeration of the plants grown for the embellish- 

 ment of the parks and gardens of Paris, in a handy 

 octavo form, would be welcome to almost every lover of 

 horticulture ; but the object of the compiler of the 

 " Arboretum et Fleuriste " was doubtless such as we have 

 indicated. It is printed on one side of the paper only, 

 and the matter arranged in columns, giving the names, 

 native countries, soil, use, height, form of leaves, colour 

 of flowers, &c., of the various plants. As a horticultural 

 catalogue the work is fairly well executed, but, like most 

 gardening books, it contains errors that have been copied 

 from book to book, though they were cleared up long ago. 

 In the first part of the work the author has indulged in an 

 attempt to introduce a reform in botanical nomenclature ; 

 why it was not carried through we are not told, probably 

 for the reason that, however desirable reformation may 

 be, this one would scarcely receive any support from 

 botanists. It consists in giving all substantive specific 

 names an adjectival form, and, a less justifiable act, of 

 changing the terminations of good Latin names. Thus, 

 for example, Piiius Coullerii, Hartwegii, and Fenslii, 

 become P. Coulterea, Hartwegea^ (S:c. Objections might 

 be urged against this course ; but why should we change 

 Benthamiana and kindred names into Benthamea ? And 

 Pinus inopsea for P. inops is quite inadmissible. 



The information under the several headings is usually 

 not inaccurate, but somewhat loose. Thus, under the 

 genus Magtiolia, Pennsylvania is given as the native 

 country of M. acutninaia, Carolina of auriculahi, Vir- 

 ginia of glauca, and so on ; whereas these trees have a 

 much wider range of distribution. Again, under CraicE- 

 gus coccinea, we are told that the specific name indicates 

 scarlet flowers ; but the flowers are white, and the fruit 

 scarlet. But as it is not a botanical work, it is scarcely 

 fair to criticise it by a botanical standard, though it is 

 scarcely excusable to give North Africa as the native 

 country of Calla yEthiopica, New Zealand of Caladium 

 esculenium, &c. Libocedrus decurrens is referred to 

 Thuja gigantea, and the true J. ^igantea to T. Menziesii; 

 but the synonomy of these plants has long been cleared 

 up even in gardening books. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

 [TAe Editor does not hold himself responsible Jor opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to return, 

 or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts. 

 No notice is taken 0/ anonymous communications.'] 

 Prof. Willis's Mechanical Models 

 There is a slight error in your account of the disposition of 

 Prof. Willis with regard to his mechanical models in your last 

 impression (p. 14). 



Prof. Willis did not put any price upon his models ; but by 

 his will, dated May 11, 1872, directed that his "mechanical 

 models " should be " offered to the University of Cambridge at 

 a price to be fixed by the valuation of some competent appraiser 

 to be nominated and chosen " by his executors. 



In consequence, we have caused the models to be so valued, 

 and fixed upon the sum named (1,200/.) after due consideration 

 of the means of the University and the requirements of the 

 estate. 



A Syndicate was appointed on April 29 to consider whether 

 the whole or a part of the collection shall be purchased. In the 

 event of the University decUning to purchase, the portion re- 

 jected will be offered for sale by public auction or private 

 contract. John Willis Clark 



W. H. Besant 

 Cambridge, May 9 Executors to the late Prof. Willis 



Ants and Bees 



In Nature, vol. xi. p. 306, Mr. Alfred George Renshaw 

 refers to and criticises a paper on "Ants and Eees," lately read 

 by Sir John Lubbock, and assumes, or seems to assume — and 

 the language quoted justifies such assumption— that Sir John 

 advanced the idea that bees have no means of communicating 

 knowledge to each other. 



It seems strange to me, who have been all my life familiarly 

 acquainted with the working of bees, that anyone should doubt 

 their power of communicating knowledge. The very idea there 

 advanced, that "if the bees had the means of communicating 

 knowledge, those bees would have told the others in the hive 

 where they could obtain a'good store of honey with a very little 

 trouble, and would have brought a lot back with them," I have 

 seen proved and illustrated hundreds of times. 



liee-hunters understand this faculty in the bee perfectly well, 

 and turn it to a good account. Going to a field or wo«d at a 

 distance from tame bees, with their box of honey, they gather up 

 from the flowers and imprison one or more bees, and after they 

 have become sufficiently gorged, let them out to return to their 

 home with their easily-gotten load. Waiting patiently a longer 

 or shorter tune, according to the distance of the bee-tree, the 

 hunter scarcely ever fails to see the bee or bees return, accom- 

 panied with other bees, which are in like manner imprisoned, 

 till they in their turn are filled, when one or more are let out 

 at places distant from each other, and the direction in each case 

 ill which the bee flies noted, and thus, by a kind of triangulation, 

 the position of the bee-tree proximately ascertained. 



Those who have stored honey in their houses understand very 

 well how important it is to prevent a single bee from discovering 

 its location. Such discovery is sure to be followed by a general 

 onslaught from the hive unless all means of access is prevented. 

 It is possible that our American are more intelligent than Euro- 

 pean bees, but hardly probable ; and I certainly shall not ask 

 an Englishman to admit it. Those in America who are in the 

 habit of playing first, second, and third fiddle to Instinct will 

 probably attribute this seeming intelligence to that principle. 



It seems to me, and I think it may be so concluded on scien- 

 tific principle, that there is no difference, except in degree, 

 between the intelligence, or whatever it may be called, of man 

 and of lower animal life. If the honey-bee, the ballooning spider, 

 the agricultural ant, or the dog, is governed wholly by. instinct, 

 then it seems reasonable to infer that man is also governed by in- 

 sdnct. If all the actions of lower animal life are automatic, on 

 what principle shall we say that man's are not automatic ? If 

 man builds his house, and, intending to furnish it and lay in a 

 stock of provisions, ascertains from his neighbour where he can 

 get the most at the cheapest rate, does he act on any prin- 

 ciple different from the bees, who build their house and jointly 

 or separately ascertahi where the best stock of honey can be 

 obtained ? 



In regard to selfislmess, I think the bee has the advantage of 



