296 FERTILIZATION OF FLOWERS BY INSECTS. 
There is yet a general objection which can be advanced against 
the application of the Darwinian doctrine to flowers and insects. 
Even conceding, it may be said, that this doctrine can be applied 
to all the phenomena of the organized world, and that in many 
points its a priori deductions are confirmed æ posteriori by obser- 
vation, it does not follow from that that it should be preferred to 
the teleological mode of view which explains every property of 
organisms as created with a view to the nai of a given indi- 
vidual or of other individuals as well. 
upon the pollen, A am their visits are consequently of greater utility to plants than 
those of bees and fl 
If th vie theory is in harmony ith t th tł foll i 5 phemonena 1d ily be 
ve . 
t, th a p, Eoi . i 1 
flowers, as contrasted with flowers fecundated by bees . les wanes onstantly m 
fest a consi iderable saving in e pooni of pollen t us see if "og saving ‘alike 
place in t examp ight-flowering aad Mirabilis jalapa and M. 
Orta for every ovule to be fertiinéd offer not less than five anthers furnished with 
numerous pollen-grains. nothera biennis, furnished with eight large anthers, offers 
to the aiast of the Lepidoptera festoons of pollen, ee Fader part of which is of use 
neither to the insects nor the plant. Cereus grandifloru s an excessively large num- 
er of stamens and consequently of ara Siei a mean of these and other lepi- 
ha moan of frapar flowers it must 
f pol n-saving i m the r 
r T 
a ee ee a, ee ee +} 
ta + or 
Secondly, the flowers with long tubes, o fertil 
kitas if the author’s theory is true, Rr constantly harbor the anthers within the 
be so as to withdraw them from the depredation of bees and flies. Now this is pre- 
rotrude beyond the tube, evidently to make bees and flies, as well as Lepidoptera, con- 
tribute to the transfer of api pemi bas Siete whioh can be said er be a 
lutely wanting to the flora of Europe, Į 
dly, if the theory in question is k ants optero 
philous would take, or would tend to me he isla ao over plants with exclave 
melittophilous or myophilous flowers. But precisely the opposite of this is true, an 
limiting myself uropean flora, while not more than from ten to twenty species ase 
pearing ee (species of ct cage ma Calystegia, some Caryop hylla- 
ceæ, and t pak em a myophilous species are numerous (almost all the 
m ie , Aristolochiaceæ, pesee enir Celastrinex, etc.), and 
most numerous o og ye are thes e which are prne melittophilous, that is, all the 
Legumino yei greater partof the Labiatæ, Personatæ, Rorragineæ, Cynaroceph- 
an 
aie, Lactuee, o 
d t the tl of See author of the harp of horem 
philous flowers; eins ingenious, does n eem admissible. I am as profoundly 
pursuaded as Erm. Miiller that both the e possession of long, honey-bearing ‘abel, and 
the eas of flowering at night in plants, stand the Lepidoptera 
and eg proboscis; beds not that the reason of this reciprocal adaptation only has to 
eater or less P on of pollen on the part of the insects; since it 
cg k be beste to gine Com 
Decree opportune to state ae result of the studies I have made with a view to 
el iiio he genesis of topidoptetóphlions f owers; but as this special theme is con- 
nected with the ogy e theo mA e me oet = —— of anemophilous, ornithophilous, 
iore o refer to my other writings, as there is 
no space here to a Aa 
