MALAD1E ET SYMBIOSE 279 



Evidently, Luxury-Symbiosis has greatly detracted from the 

 physiology proper to Norm-Symbiosis. 



Darwin apparently apprehended some mystery. His 

 observations showed that out of 207 flowers examined, not half 

 had been visited by insects and of the 88 flowers visited 31 had 

 only one pollinium removed. This is his comment : 



As the- visits of insects are indispensable for the fertilisation of this 

 Orchid, it is surprising (as in the case of Orchis fusca] that the flowers have 

 not been rendered more attractive to insects. The number of seed-capsules 

 produced is proportionably even less than the number of flowers visited 

 by insects. The year 1861 was extraordin arilyj favourable to this species 

 in this part of Kent, and I never saw such numbers in flower; accordingly 

 I marked eleven plants, which bore forty-nine flowers, but these produced 

 only seven capsules. Two of the plants each bore two capsules, and three 

 other plants each bore one, so that no less than six plants did not produce 

 a single capsule ! What are we to conclude from these facts ? Are the 

 conditions of life unfavourable to this species, though during the year just 

 alluded to it was so numerous in some places as to deserve to be called 

 quite common ? Could the plant nourish more seed ; and would it be 

 of any advantage to it to produce more seed ? Why does it produce so many 

 flowers, if it already produces a sufficiency of seeds ? Something seems to 

 be out of order in its mechanism or in its conditions. 



" Want of attractiveness to insects," though rather puzzling, 

 was as far as Darwin could go in surmising the cause of the 

 backwardness of this species. Further explanation had to wait 

 for the elucidation of the socio-physiological laws determining 

 the depauperisation of plants. Darwin is astonished at the fact 

 that the flowers have not " been rendered " (by whom or what ?) 

 more attractive to insects. He searches for some expedient useful- 

 ness. Apparently we are not to blame Nature, nor " Natural 

 Selection," nor the Omnipotent Creator (expressly dismissed on 

 p. 245) for the plight of the plant. It seems plain, therefore, 

 that we can only reprobate the plant itself for failing in its duties 

 as a responsible bio-economic agent. If the plant be " out of 

 condition," this is because for some reason or other its metabolism 

 is not what it should be. If the plant exert but diminished 

 " attraction," such predicament, here as elsewhere, is due to a 

 loss of viability and of integrity ; and it is of vital importance 

 to discover the respective sequence of cause and effect. 



Like the Fly Orchis, the Spider Orchis is but little visited 

 by insects in England, and in Italy even less so. Ophrys apifera, 

 the Bee Ophrys, contrary to what is the rule amongst orchids 

 generally, is even " excellently constructed for fertilising itself " 



