Mr. A. R. Wallace on the Bee's Cell. 303 



seems to belong; the Acer ampelophyllum, as to the true nature 

 of which there is still much doubt, especially in the absence of 

 its fruit, would take its place, judging from its leaf, among the 

 smallest species of the genus. 



Thus there would remain only Ulmus plurinervia, the leaf of 

 which is of tolerable size, and which, even without this indica- 

 tion, might have constituted an actual tree. For this, its pro- 

 bably distant station may sufficiently explain the rarity of its 

 impressions. 



To sum up, — in spite of obscurities which it is impossible 

 entirely to elucidate, it is certain that nearly the whole of the 

 organisms with deciduous leaves in the flora of Aix indicate 

 limited dimensions, denoting mere shrubs; and if there were 

 trees among them, this denomination could only be applied to 

 the smallest number, and, so to speak, to a single species. 



We terminate these considerations, which have been perhaps 

 treated at rather too great a length, but in which the novelty of 

 the subject necessitated more development than in ordinary 

 cases, by formulating our conclusions as follows : — In accordance 

 with all the indications, it is extremely probable that the plants 

 with deciduous leaves of the flora of Aix only played in it a 

 secondary part ; and if their impressions are very rare in the 

 beds formed at that epoch, their station at a little distance from 

 the ancient shores, their distribution as isolated individuals, and 

 the small size of most of them have concurred to produce that 

 result. We affirm, lastly, that the periodical fall of the leaves 

 in these species, far from implying the existence of a cold season, 

 is a phenomenon very reconcilable with the high temperature 

 which is indicated by the profusion of tropical forms in the 

 flora of the Gypsum of Aix. 



XXX. — Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's Paper on the Bee's 

 Cell, and on the Origin of Species. By Alfred R. Wallace. 



My attention has been called to the paper in the ' Annals ' for 

 June last on the above subjects, the author of which seems to 

 me to have quite misunderstood and much misrepresented the 

 facts and reasonings of Mr. Darwin on the question. As some 

 of your readers may conclude, if it remains unanswered, that it 

 is therefore unanswerable, I ask permission to make a few re- 

 marks on what seem to me its chief errors. 



Mr. Haughton combats the views not only of those who believe 

 that the regular structure of the Bee's comb can be accounted 

 for through the agency of " natural selection " and variation, 

 but also of the opposite school, who impute to the Bee a super- 



