February 5, 1903] 



NA TURE 



319 



impulse to laugh at what is displeasing and painful in order 

 that the automatically determined movements of laughter may 

 disperse our attention, may prevent us attending to the dis- 

 pleasing spectacle and, by their stimulating effects, may 

 counteract its depressing influence. 



These facts suggest, in short, a theory of the ludicrous the 

 exact converse of that which we may call the pleasure-theory ; 

 they suggest that we laugh at the ludicrous, not because it is 

 pleasing, but because it is painful. 



Such a theory may appear at first sight somewhat paradoxical, 

 and yet as an explanatory principle it may perhaps go further 

 and deeper than any other. The truth of it appears clearly in 

 those cases in which we begin by disliking a thing and proceed 

 to ridicule it, i.e. to display it in its ludicrous aspects. Prof. 

 Sully appears as an apologist and advocate of laughter, and yet 

 even he recognises that laughter is not all joy, as when he says 

 of modern laughter " there is in it from the first ejaculation 

 something of a biting sensation or something of a melancholy 

 pain," and again, " the laughable spectacle commonly shows us 

 in the background something regrettable " ; and of its function 

 as a vitaliser or stimulant that enables us to bear up against the 

 ills that surround us he has no doubt. " Some hearts of many 

 chords . . . might break but for the timely comings of the 

 laughter-fay with her transforming wand." 



In considering any theory of the ludicrous, we must sharply 

 distinguish between " laughter-at " and that simplest, most 

 charming and infectious kind of laughter which is the overflow 

 of good spirits and is fully explained by Herbert Spencer's prin- 

 ciple of the overflow of surplus nervous energy into the most 

 open tracks. "Laughter-at" is, of course, often combined 

 with other forms of laughter, and the accompanying mental 

 state may be extremely complex, yet the spectacle of the displeas- 

 ing seems to be its fundamental ciuse. 



fust as in times and places in which the mass of men live 

 under unnatural and depressing conditions the stimulating 

 effects of alcohol are used not merely as a protection against 

 cold, but are sought for their own sake, so the spectacle of the 

 coarse and hrutal comes to be sought for the sake of the stim- 

 ulating effects of laughter, normally a protection against depres- 

 sing mental influences ; we have then the curious phenomenon of 

 the crowd flocking to the circus and the pantomime (to have a 

 good laugh, as they frequently say), where the staple source 

 of laughter is the buffeting of the clowns, blows being apparently 

 dealt which, if witnessed in real life, would make one-half the 

 spectators feel sick and faint. We may note, too, how in the 

 course of a football match a heavy fall or a violent collision 

 between the players calls forth a roar of laughter from the 

 crowd and so adds to the attractions of the spectacle. 



The consideration of the laughter caused by tickling also points 

 away from the " pleasure-theory " and supports the theory here 

 suggested. There can be little doubt that the sensation of 

 tickling is in itself distinctly unpleasant, both to the child and 

 to the adult, even while the victim responds with loud laughter ; 

 the enjoyment of the situation by the child seems to be analogous 

 to its enjoyment in being mildly frightened or in any other vivid 

 and lively experience. And Prof. Sully himself tells us that 

 " much, at least, of the later and more refined laughter is 

 analogous to the effect of tickling." 



It may seem at first sight that the view proposed is merely an 

 application of, and involves the acceptance of, the Lange-James 

 theory of the emotions, and that Prof Sully has dealt with it 

 in those pages in which he very properly rejects that theory ; 

 but this is by no means the case, for laughter is not an emotion, 

 but a slate of the physical organism (producing certain effects 

 in consciousness) that may accompany almost any emotional 

 state. If we accept the view here suggested, we may surmise 

 that the laughter reaction has been developed as a necessary 

 corrective of the effects of sympathy, for the power of sympathy 

 is so great that in the absence of this corrective those spectacles, 

 which meet us on every hand and which we call the ludicrous, 

 might well destroy us. 



In making this suggestion, it is not intended to deny the 

 plurality of causes in most cases of " laughter-at," for, though 

 the principle suggested may indicate the predominating factor in 

 the case of the coarse laughter of low minds, in highly developed 

 minds it becomes so overlaid with complicating factors as to be 

 with difficulty distinguishable in many cases. If the principle 

 suggested be regarded as inadmissible, the violence of the 

 laughter-reaction must remain something of a mystery, for 

 it is altogether disproportionate to the causes that are assigned 



NO. 1736, VOL. 67] 



to it. The acceptance of this theory would in no wise invalidate 

 those theories of the social functions of laughter developed by 

 Prof. Sully in a most interesting manner, but would rather 

 strengthen them, because it would make clear the cause of the 

 universal dislike to being laughed at, a point which for the 

 pleasure-theory of laughter remains obscure. 



W. McDougall. 



Insects and Petal-less Flowers. 



Prof. Plateau, of the University of Ghent, has for many 

 years carried on a series of important experiments concerning 

 the ways of insects in visiting flowers. He contends that they 

 are not attracted by the brilliant colours of the blossoms, but 

 rather by the perception in some other way — probably by scent 

 — that there is honey or pollen. 



I have just received from Prof. Plateau an account of some 

 of his most recent work, and it seems of sufficient interest and 

 importance to lay before the readers of Nature. His paper, 

 " Les Pavots decorolles et les insectes Visiteurs," is a record of 

 experiments carried on during 190! and 1902 and published in 

 the Bulletins de I ' AcacUmie royaled^ Belgique, November, 1902. 



Flowers of Papaver Orientate, L., were deprived of their 

 petals, and the number of insects visiting the remaining parts 

 carefully noted and compared with the number of those visiting 

 neighbouring intact flowers. 



Now it seems evident that the question, Are insects at- ■ 

 traded by the brilliant colours of flowers? should be decisively 

 answered by such experiments. If they are thus attracted, then 

 we should expect them to neglect these petal-less flowers while 

 visiting the others. In removing the petals, Prof, Plateau took 

 certain precautions. The unopened flower was carefully en- 

 closed in a sort of cage, so as to preclude insect visits. When 

 it expanded, the petals were carefully removed by means of a 

 pair of scissors kept specially for this purpose. Great care was 

 taken to avoid touching any of the remaining parts of the 

 flower with the fingers. Prof. Plateau lays special stress on 

 this, as he thinks that certain previous experiments of a similar 

 nature have been vitiated by neglecting such a precaution. The 

 experimenter in removing the corolla has left on the remaining 

 parts the scent of human fingers. Its keen sense of smell 

 enabling the insect to perceive this, it has consequently avoided 

 the flower. 



The poppy flowers thus carefully prepared were watched, and 

 the number and kind of insects visiting them noted. At the 

 same time, a number of intact flowers were similarly watched. 

 Here are the results as summed up by Prof. Plateau : — 



In the 30 No. of In the 70 No. of 



petal-less flowers. visits, normal flowers. visits. 



Apis mel/ifica ... 97 ... •■■ 121 



Megachile centuncularis 1 ... ... 1 



Osmia aurulenta ... o ... ... I 



Halictus sexnotatus 19 ... ... 18 



Oxybelns uniglumis 14 .. ... 29 



Small unidentified Hy- 



menoptera ... ... o ... ... I 



Melauostoma mellina ... 4 ... ... O 



Syrphus corollae ... I ... ... o 



Tclephorus lividus ... I ... ... I 



Total 137 172 



Or taking the average, each of the 30 petal-less flowers 



received 4^5 visits, each of the 70 normal flowers received 



2 "4 visits. 



So great, indeed, appeared to be the attraction of these 



petal-less flowers that on many occasions Prof. Plateau has 



seen more than one bee in a single flower. Here are his 



figures on this point : — 



2 hive bees in same flower 

 3 



Times. 



9 



.. 2 

 . 2 



1 



1 



1 



hive bee and 1 Halictus 

 2 hive bees and 1 Halictus 



1 Halictus and 1 Oxybelus 



2 Oxybelus 

 Insect visits to flowers which have naturally lost their 



petals are by no means uncommon. Darwin noted them in 

 certain flowers. I have myself seen bees visiting flowers of 

 Geranium phaeum, Helianthemiuii vutgare, Rubus frulicosus 

 and Salvia officinalis which had lost their petals. 



13 Vicarage Drive, Eastbourne. G. W. Bulman. 



