AND HONEY. 205 



part of a flower Nectary, from analogy alone, though 

 he might not in every case be able to prove that such 

 parts produced honey. This is convenient enough for 

 botanical distinctions, though perhaps not always right 

 in physiology ; yet there is nothing for which he has 

 been more severely and contemptuously censured. 

 He was too wise to answer illiberal criticism, or he 

 might have required his adversaries to prove that such 

 parts were not Nectaries. Sometimes possibly he may 

 seem to err, like L'Heritier, in calling abortive sta- 

 mens by this name. Yet who knows that their fila- 

 ments do not secrete honey, as well as the tubes of 

 numerous flowers? And though abortive as to An- 

 thers, the Filament, continuing strong and vigorous, 

 may do its office. 



Honey is not absolutely confined to the flower. 

 The glands on the footstalks of Passion-flowers yield 

 it, and it exudes from the flower-stalks of some lili- 

 aceous plants. 



The sweet viscid liquor in question has given rise 

 to much diversity of opinion respecting its use. Pon- 

 tedera thought it was absorbed by the seeds for their 

 nourishment while forming, as the yolk of the egg 

 by the chick. But Linnaeus observes in reply, that 

 barren flowers produce it as well as fertile ones, witness 

 Urtica and Saliv. In some instances the fertile flowers 

 only are observed to bear honey, as PhyUanthus and 

 Tamus, but such cases are rare, liven Darwin says 

 the honey is the food of the stamens and pistils, not 



