APRIL 11, 1884.] 
-for the complexity of the scheme seems to belong less 
to what we ordinarily call instinct than to intel- 
ligence, and that in a degree we cannot 
all boast ourselves. 
The reader who questions the propri- 
ety of the Jast remark may be invited to 
pause, before hearing the spider’s de- 
vice, to consider how he would proceed 
to lift a whole ox hanging vertically be- 
neath him atthe end of a hundred-fath- 
om cable, if he had no appliances what- 
ever except some spare rope. 
The little spider proceeded as follows 
(ab is a portion of the window-bar, to 
which level the fly was to be lifted from 
his original position at F, vertically be- 
neath a): the spider’s first act was to 
descend halfway to the fly (to d), and 
there fasten one end of an almost in- 
visible 
a e b thread; 
. his sec- 
ond, to 
ascend 
to the 
bar and run 
out to b, where 
he made fast ) 
the other end, and hauled on 
his guy with all his small might. 
Evidently the previously straight 
line must yield somewhat in the 
middle, what- . 
ever the weight of 
the fly, who was, 
in fact, thereby 
brought into the 
position PF’, to the 
right of the first 
one, and a little 
higher. Beyond 
this point, it 
might seem, he 
could not be lift- 
ed; but the guy being left 
fast at b, the spider now went 
to an intermediate point (c) 
directly over his victim’s new 
position, and thence spun a 
new vertical line from c, which 
was made fast at the bend 
(at d’), after which the now 
useless portion a d’ was cast 
off, so that the fly now hung 
vertically below c, as_ before 
below a, but a little higher. 
The same operation was re- 
peated again and again, a new 
guy being occasionally spun, 
but the spider never descend- 
ing more than about halfway 
down the cord, whose elasticity 
was in no way involved inthe process. All was done 
with surprising rapidity. I watched it for some five 
minutes (during which the fly was lifted perhaps six 
inches), and then was called away. Es, 
d dv’ 
| 
| 
I 
I 
| 
J 
| 
I 
i 
J 
1 
j 
j 
| 
| 
I 
J 
| 
| 
® FF 
F 
Two species of tertiary plants. 
In looking over the plates of Mr. L. Lesquereux’s 
Tertiary flora (U.S. geol. and geogr. surv., F. V. Hay- 
den in charge) , I noticed on plate xiv. a figure which 
seemed to havea familiar appearance. It was like the 
fruiting-frond of a fern, but the explanation called 
SCIENCE. 
a, Caulinites fecundus, Lesqx. 
435 
it Caulinites fecundus, Lesqx. ‘The deseription on 
p- 101 referred to it as probably representing the un- 
Fie. 1. b, Onoclea sensibilis, L. 
developed flowers of some palm. Turning to Gray’s 
Botany, plate xviii., I was struck with the resem- 
blance between his figure of Onoclea sensibilis and 
that given by Mr. Lesquereux. 
I have shown the two 
Wh, 
9 / 
] / 
ANY: k 
N\A 
WAAAY | Yas 
A ANG. 
4 \ 4” 
AAA SB 
\\ RY\A\YAWRS UH 
\ \N \\ \ K { 
‘ 
\ Y a: 
SEY \\\ | 
Wit) A} 
7 
Fie. 2.— Zamiostrobus mirabilis, Lesqx. 
species side by side in fig. 1, and there is no doubt in 
my mind that the Caulinites fecundus is nothing but 
a part of the fertile frond of Onoclea sensibilis. 
In the Annals of the lyceum of natural history, 
New York, vol. ix. p. 39, Dr. Newberry records the 
finding of the sterile fronds of Onoclea sensibilis in 
strata of miocene age at Fort Union, Dakota. He 
considers that ‘‘there is little room for doubt, .. . 
that during the miocene age a species of Onoclea flour- 
ished in the interior of our continent, of stronger habit 
than either of the living varieties, and holding a mid- 
