NATURAL HISTORY MISCELLANY. 783 
idea that if the petaloid lobes of the divided anthers in Salvia, 
which closed the throat of the corolla in most of the species, were 
really designed to aid in the diffusion of the pollen by insect 
agency, the subsequent clasping of the stamens by the upper lip 
of Salvia involucrata and thus preventing the said action, was a 
queer proceeding. 
I hope that this matter will not be lost sight of by those who 
advocate the universal adaptation theory, and to aid in keeping 
the subject fresh, I would point out that in Salvia coccinea the 
“lever” arrangement exists as in most other Salvias, but are set 
back against the upper surface of the corolla, in such a way as to 
be absolutely useless as an obstruction of the throat, or for any 
purpose whatever that I can see. It is getting to be the fashion 
to refer any useless organs or structures to some supposed distant 
progenitors, from which the modern organism sprung. Our whis- 
kers and so forth for instance, are said really to belong to the 
monkey from which we are descended, rather than to the modern 
man to whom they are now attached. It will be a curious study 
for botanists to trace out the progenitors of these Salvias which 
may claim the original uses of these petaloid anthers in cases 
where they are as useless now as the hair on our faces. But if we 
may be pardoned for deriding easy beliefs, as well as easy labors, 
we may say of some of these matters, as we say of pollen or of 
seeds themselves, that nature makes numberless things, for which 
she has no use whatever. Perhaps it may be, that like the human 
mind, the mind of nature likes variety and profusion, in the effort 
for which mere utility is not always consulted. —Tuomas MEEHAN. 
[Should Mr. Meehan read E. Miller’s Discourse, in the July 
number of the Naturauist, he will notice that, with the Darwin- 
ian school, and in virtue of the very terms of the theory which 
has imparted so much interest into the subject, ‘universal adapta- 
tion” is regarded as a consequence rather than as a forethought. 
Thus far he would seem to be in accord with Darwinians. But in 
nothing could he more widely diverge from their way of thinking 
than in his suggestions that “ Nature makes numberless things 
for which she has no use whatever,” if by his metaphorical ex- 
pression he means that the ‘‘things” are of no use to the beings 
that produce them. And of this sort, ‘pollen and seeds” are 
queer examples. Does he mean that these are useless because ~ 
perabundant enough to ensure against risk and loss and appropri- 
