208 
While speaking of entomological matters, allow me to mention 
that in the month of August last year the small blue lobelias in 
my garden were the favourite resort not only of my hive-bees, 
but of a species of wild bee so singularly resembling them in 
every respect (excepting, perhaps, a barely perceptible amount 
of greater firmness and roundness of form), that they could only 
be distinguished by the presence of a tuft of lemon-yellow hairs 
in the front of the head between the eyes. I thought at first that 
this might have resulted from a lodgment of pollen, but it soon 
became evident that it was a specific distinction. These pretty 
insects were very numerous, but I never found any nest. Will 
some apiarian reader oblige me with an identification ? 
To turn to a somewhat different subject. In a little book 
called ‘‘ Flowers of the Year,” published by the Religious Tract 
Society, is the following passage : ‘‘ An interesting phenomenon 
is sometimes exhibited by red and orange-coloured flowers, and 
also, in a less degree, by yellow-tinted blossoms. It is that 
of a light of their own colour playing about the plant. This is 
not the result of an inflammable vapour igniting on the approach 
of a candle, but seems rather, as Sharon Turner has remarked, 
“an actual secretion of light additional to their usual show.’ 
The cause of this phenomenon has not been discovered, but it 
seems dependent on an electrical state of the atmosphere. It 
has not been seen during the bright sunshine, but has been ob- 
served after sunset in several flowers, as the marigold, the different 
species of poppy, the scarlet geranium, and even in the hearts- 
ease.’ I have several times met witha similar statement, and much 
wish to know what trustworthy foundation there may be for it. I 
have repeatedly tried to verify it by observation, but in vain. 
Since penning the above remarks, the yellow-visored bee has 
again appeared on the blossoms of a Linaria Alpina, the 
descendant of a plant brought by my wife from Switzerland 
seven years ago, and now blooming profusely with us. I have 
seen several specimens of my old friend, but cannot as yet satisfy 
myself that the yellow tint is due to hair of that colour, as I 
supposed last year. 
Hardwick Vicarage, July 12 
The Solar Spots 
I HAVE been much interested of late in observing the solar 
spots, and especially in the greatly-increased numbers which 
have lately made their appearance. I have counted from 100 to 
200 spots, throvgh a six-feet telescope, with a power of 100, 
quite frequently in the past few months. On the 22nd ult., with 
a power of 200, I counted 675 sun spots, and on the 27th saw 
470 with the 100 eyepiece. In general, I think the number of 
spots visible is about in proportion to the power used when the 
atmosphere is favourable for high powers. During the month 
several spots were visible to the naked eye. 
I feel quite desirous to learn what our spectroscopists find 
about the sun’s margin, also if observations indicate a terrestrial 
magnetic force corresponding with the sun’s activity. 
Would not many readers of NATURE be much interested with 
results from Huggins and Lockyer and the Kew observers ? 
Spiceland, Indiana, July 6 W. Dawson 
T. W. WEzB 
DARWIN BEFORE THE FRENCH ACADEMY 
HE discussion on the claims of Mr. Darwin for elec- 
tion into the Zoological Section of the Paris 
Academy was continued at the meeting on August I in 
comité secret,and the Revue des Cours Scientifigues gives 
a report, of which the following is an abstract, of M. de 
QOuatrefages’ brilliant and able reply to M. Blanchard :— 
There are two men included in Mr. Darwin, a naturalist 
observer and a theoretical thinker : the naturalist is exact, 
sagacious, and patient ; the thinker is original and pene- 
trating, often just, sometimes too rash. That the theory 
with which his name is connected, that of Natural Selec- 
tion, has in it at least something seductive and plausible, is 
shown by its having been worked out by such men as Dar- 
win, Wallace, and Naudin, labouring independently and in 
different paths. If the ideas and the works of Darwin are 
such as some of his opponents represent, how can they 
have obtained the support in less than ten years of such 
men as Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, Karl Vogt, Lubbock, 
Haeckel, Filippi, and Brandt himself, who has just been 
NATURE 
[Aug. rT, 1870 
elected correspondent in opposition to Mr, Darwin? In 
Darwin’s great work there are certainly some things 
which are found in Lamarck, the laws of heredity, and the 
transmission and progressive development of characters. 
The point of departure of Lamarck is an incessant sponta- 
neous generation, that of Darwin is a unique archetype 
which he supposes to pre-exist, and the origin of which 
he does not seek. That which belongs to Darwin alone 
is the laws of variation which he has established, and the 
law of correlation of growth, His error has been the 
confusion between the laws which regulate the founda- 
tion and propagation of races and of species ; substitute 
the former for the latter and his theory is incontrovertible. 
Without defending Mr. Darwin’s theories, some of which 
he has indeed publicly combated, M. de Quatrefages then 
proceeded to enumerate the various branches of scientific 
inquiry in which Mr. Darwin has made original observa- 
tions, and concerning which he has contributed works of 
great importance toscience. In geology we find seven great 
memoirs—1. On coralislands; 2. Geological observations 
on volcanic islands ; 3. Geological observations in South 
America ; 4. On the connection of the volcanic pheno- 
mena in South America ; 5. On the distribution of erratic 
blocks in South America ; 6. On the geology of the Falk- 
land Islands; 7. Origin of the saliferous deposits of 
Patagonia. In botany the speaker invoked the testimony 
of Dr. Hooker that the most beautiful discoveries made 
during the last ten years in vegetable physiology belong to 
Mr. Darwin. Finally, in zoological literature we have the 
report of the voyage of the Beagle ; and the monograph 
of the Cirrhipedes, one of the most important monographs 
ever published. After speaking of his more popular works 
on the origin of species and the variation of animals and 
plants under domestication, M. de Quatrefages referred to 
his important and laborious investigations of the strange 
variations in fowls, pigeons, and rabbits ; and summed up 
his eloquent address as follows :—“ En résumé, M. Darwin 
est un naturaliste éminent qui veut écarter de la science 
linvocation de la cause premiére, et chercher l’explica- 
tion des faits naturels du monde organisé dans les causes 
secondes, comme on le fait depuis longtemps en géologie, 
en chimie, en physique. Mais il ne va pas au dela, et il 
ne faudrait pas juger Darwin sur la parole de quelques 
disciples qui semblent parfois ne pas avoir lu ses ouvrages. 
Il y.aurait injustice 4 le rendre responsable des exagéra- 
tions et des aberrations de ceux qui s’abritent sous son 
nom.” 
M. de Quatrefages was followed by M. Ad. Brongniart, 
who attacked the Darwinian system, denying the exist- 
ence of variation in plants. The appearance of species 
is a fact which can only be explained by a supernatural 
cause, and Darwinism is nothing but a fairy tale. 
M. Ch. Robin considered that in respect of proved facts 
which he had introduced into science, there would be a 
hundred zoologists who should have precedence over 
Darwin. M. H. Milne-Edwards replied to M. Brong- 
niart, that the sea sometimes discloses fairy tales, and 
spoke of the very great value of the monograph of the Cirr- 
hipedes. Although himself opposed to Darwinism, he 
strongly supported his nomination. M., de Quatrefages, in 
reply, denied the charge against Darwin made by M. Blan- 
chard, that he had declared that man was descended from 
the apes. In deciding Mr. Darwin’s claims, we ought 
not to be influenced by those points in which we have to 
combat his views, any more than Lamarck was judged in 
this manner. In spite of his errors, he will be none the 
less one of the glories of science and of the Academy. His 
nomination will not make the Academy Darwinian. Men 
of science know that the Institute appreciates work inde- 
pendently of doctrine, and men of the world know that 
the supporters of Darwin in the zoological section, MM. 
Milne-Edwards, and de Quatrefages, have always pro- 
fessed themselves opposed to his ideas. The discussion 
was then adjourned to last Monday evening. 
