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 



