140 Darwin on the Effects of Cross- and Seh 



X is, of workin 

 Y, may here likt 

 ith the fact ths 

 only when thes 

 (p. 433.) 



it humble- 

 ;e grow in 



e holes is don 

 the latter are 



e only by 



It appears that the cutting of the: 

 humble-bees, never by hive-bees. Ye 

 take advantage of them. 



" In the early part of 1 

 during some weeks sever 



■ this plant, 

 and daily saw humble- ami lii\ <-)>< es -licking at the mouths of the 

 flowers. But one dav I found several humble-bees employed in 

 Kitting holes in flower after flower; and on the next day every 

 single hive-bee, without exception, instead of alighting on the 

 left wing-pel Bower in the proper manner, flew 



ithonl the least hesitation to the calyx, and sucked 

 through the holes which had been made only the day before by 

 the humble-bees ; and they continued this habit for many follow- 

 ing days. Mr. Belt has communicated to me (July 28th, 1874) a 

 similar case, with the sole difference that less than half of the 

 flowers had been perforated by tin ' ml ! s: nevertheless i 

 the hive-bees gave up sucking at the mouths of the flowers and 

 visited exclusively the bitten ones. Xow how did the hive-bees 

 find out so quickly that holes had been made ? Instinct seems to 

 be out of the question, as the plant is an exotic. The holes can- 

 not be seen by bees whilst standing on the wing-petals, where 

 they had always previously alighted. From the ease with which 

 bees were deceived when the petals of Lobelia Erimis were cut 

 off, it was clear that in this case they were" not guided to the nee- 

 tar by its smell; and it may be doubted whether they were 

 attracted to the holes in the flowers of the Phaseolus by the odor 

 emitted from them. Did they perceive the holes by the sense of 

 touch in their probo<n Sowers in the proper 



manner, ami then reason that it would save them time to alight 

 on the outside of the flowers and use the holes ? This seems 

 almost too abstruse an act of reason for bees; and it is more 

 probable that they saw the humble-bees at work, and understand- 

 ing what they were about, imitated them and took advantage 

 of the shorter path to the nectar. Even whh 

 scale, such as monkeys, we shotil 1 ting that all 



Lduahi of one species within the space of twenty-tour 

 hours understood an act performed by a distinct species, and 

 profited by it." (pp. 430, 431.) 



But we must cut short our citations and remarks; passing by 

 one . ?^. ^ e most important points, relative to the amount of 

 fertilizing work done by insects, namely, the evidence of the 



