126 THE EVOLUTION OF INSTINCT 
observe the effect of its operations, so that if it makes 
mistakes it will go on doing so indefinitely. What we know of 
insect psychology renders it entirely out of the question to 
suppose that insects would be able to reflect upon their errors 
and mend their ways had they every opportunity to observe 
their deleterious effects. The offspring, instead of the par- 
ents, have to take all the consequences of the mistakes, and 
they if they survived would certainly not have enough wit, 
if they had the desire, to make things any better for the 
next generation. 
As was first pointed out by Darwin, an important objec- 
tion to the Lamarckian theory of instinct is afforded by the 
instincts of worker bees and ants. The instincts of these 
workers are among the most wonderful in the whole animal 
kingdom, and they are much more varied and highly devel- 
oped than in the males and fertile females. As Darwin 
remarks ‘peculiar habits confined to the workers or sterile 
females, however long they might be followed, could not 
possibly affect the males and fertile females, which alone 
can have descendants. I am surprised that no one has 
hitherto advanced this demonstrative case of neuter insects 
against the well-known doctrine of inherited habit advanced 
by Lamark.” 
In the hive bee the activities of the queen, after the nuptial 
flight, are almost entirely confined to laying eggs; she takes 
no part in the household duties of the hive or in the care of 
offspring. The drone’s sole function in life is to impregnate 
the queen; he takes no part in the work of the community. 
Gathering honey, making comb, caring for the young, 
keeping the hive clean, etc., are the result of instincts in 
the worker of which neither of the parents shows the least 
trace. 
This apparently crucial argument against Lamarckism 
