42 Who painted the Flowers ? 



" Our knowledge of the subject is as yet in its infancy. 

 . . . Most elementary treatises unfortunately, though 

 perhaps unavoidably, give the impression that our know- 

 ledge is far more complete and exact than really is the 

 case. . . . Few, I believe, of those who are not specially 

 devoted to zoology and botany have any idea how much 

 still remains to be ascertained with reference to even the 

 commonest and most abundant species." * 



But although incomplete and insufficient for full 

 explanation, the knowledge gained through observation 

 may well suffice to point in one direction, and I shall be 

 much surprised if, on calm consideration, that direction 

 is found to be the blind and fortuitous work of unreason- 

 ing agents. As Sir John, in yet another passage, 

 parenthetically remarks, 2 "It is difficult to account for 

 the relations which exist between flowers and insects, by 

 the hypothesis of a mere blind instinct on the part of the 

 latter." 



This brings us back to the consideration with which I 

 started. I do not believe that insects, as a matter of 

 fact, have done all for flowers which is claimed for them; 

 but were it proved to the full that no colour exists in our 

 fields and gardens which has not been developed by 

 their agency, the ultimate solution of the question which 

 heads this paper would be as far from us as ever. To 

 prove all that I have supposed would be to prove no 

 more than that our bees and butterflies are the paint- 

 brushes of nature : we should still have to ask who is her 

 artist? It is needful to dwell emphatically on this 

 point, for when once we have traced effects to a 

 mechanical cause, there are many who bid us rest 

 satisfied as with a final explanation. But such is not the 

 verdict of true science. " We now believe," says 

 Professor Weismann, "that organic nature must be con- 

 ceived as mechanical. But does it thereby follow that 

 we must totally deny a First Universal Cause ? Cer- 

 tainly not j it would be a great delusion if any one 



1 P. 178. 2 P. 19. 



