258 Miseellaneotis. 



Artemia salina from A. Miihlhausetiii, namely the different form 

 of the lower antennis, which in the former species presents an in- 

 flation wanting in the second ; secondly, M. Schmankewitsch seems 

 to assume that Artemia is distinguished from Brancldpus only by 

 the number of abdominal segments, and he does not mention the 

 very marked differences presented by the inferior antennae in the 

 two genera. Lastly, it is rather difficult to understand whether the 

 modifications which cause Artemia salina to pass into A. MiMhau- 

 senii make their appearance sooner or later than, or at the same 

 with, the modifications which approximate the genus Artemia to the 

 genus Branchipus. — Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Zool. xsv. Suppl. i. 1875, 

 p. 103, pi. 6 ; Bibl. Univ. Arch, cles Sci. liv. Nov. 15, 1875, p. 284. 



The Drosera as an Insect-catcher. By Thomas Meehan. 



Mr. Thomas Meehan referred to a discussion before the Academy 

 recently in which the question occurred, whether those plants which 

 had contrivances for catching insects made any nutritive use of the 

 insects so caught. It had been argued from experiments made in 

 England with plants under bell-glasses and free from insects which 

 were quite as healthy as those which had had insects regularly 

 supplied to them, that the plants were not actually insect-eaters. 



In a recent botanical trip to New Jersey he had found in Atlantic 

 Counf y, about five miles from Hammonton, three species of Drosera 

 {D. Jtliformis, D. longifolia, and D. rotund! folia), all growing near 

 each other in immense quantity. All of these species had insects 

 of numerous kinds attached to them. Large numbers of plants had 

 no insects. The species with the largest number of plants having 

 insects on them were in the order as above named. The insects are 

 held by the pin-like glandular hairs, which seem to lean in from all 

 sides towards the insect (as if, from its struggles to escape, di'awn in ) 

 and thus securely hold it. The remains of the insects which 

 have been caught seem to continue attached to the plant for a long 

 time ; and thus can be seen which plant has had the benefit of 

 insect-food, if food it be. No difference, however, in health or 

 vigour could be traced between those which had had insects and 

 those which had had none. Mr. Meehan did not, however, think 

 that these observations, or experiments founded on any thing they 

 suggested, would settle the question of nutrition. Among ourselves 

 there were discussions as to whether people were healthier as vege- 

 tarians or flesh-eaters, while figures showed little difference, if 

 any, either way. A plant might feed on insects when it could get 

 them, and yet bo no healthier than those which had to get along as 

 other plants did. It was necessary, however, to the theory advanced 

 by those who believed the insect-catching were reaUy insect-eating 

 plants, to show that some superior advantages favoured the insect- 

 catchers. It was believed that the power to catch insects was a 

 developed one, a power not possessed by their predecessors, and 

 developed according to the law of natural selection. Unless insect- 

 catching can be shown to be an especial advantage, there was nothing 

 to select. At any rate, his observations on the Drosera only showed 



