OhjU>. II. OPHEYS' MUSCIFEKA. _ 49 



ciently, the following cases show. During several 

 years before 1858 I occasionally examined some flowers, 

 and found that only thirteen out of 102 had one or 

 both poUinia removed. Although at the time I re- 

 corded in my notes that most of the flowers were 

 partly withered, I now think that I must have included 

 many young flowers, which might perhaps have been 

 subsequently visited ; so I prefer trusting to the fol- 

 lowing observations. 



We here see that, out of 207 flowers examined, not 

 half had been visited by insects. Of the eighty-eight 

 flowers visited, thirty -one had only one ppUinium re- 

 moved. As the visits of insects are indispensable for 

 the fertilisation of this Orchid, it is surprising (as in 

 the case of Orchis fusca) that the flowers have not been 

 rendered more attractive to insects. The number of 

 seed-capsules produced is proportionably even less than 

 the number of flowers visited by insects. The year 

 1861 was extraordinarily favourable to this species in 

 this part of Kent, and I never saw such numbers 

 in flower ; accordingly I marked eleven plants, which 

 bore forty-nine flowers, but these produced only seven 

 capsules. Two of the plants each bore two capsules, 

 and three other plants each bore one, so .that no less 

 than six plants did not produce a single capsule! 

 What are we to conclude from these facts ? Are the 

 conditions of life unfavourable to -this species, though 

 during the year just alluded to it was so numerous in 

 some places as to deserve to be called quite common ? 

 Could the plant nourish more seed ; and would it be of 

 any advantage to it" to produce more seed ? Why does 

 it produce so many flowers, if it already produces a 

 sufficiency of seeds ? Something seems to be out of 

 order in its mechanism or in its conditions. We shall 

 presently see that Ophrys apifera or the Bee Ophrys 



