124 



HARDWICKK S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



On the subject of the colour, etc., of the most advanced 

 flower, it is suggested that I have shown a little 

 inconsistency. I ventured to dispute the assertion 

 that the colours of the so-called most advanced 

 flowers are most frequently blue. In doing so, I 

 pointed out that, among our native flowers, those 

 which are considered most advanced — not those which 

 I consider most advanced, I have no theory on the 

 subject — do not contain the majority of the blue 

 ones ; while many blue flowers are simple and 

 possess the "lowly mark of symmetry." Now, in 

 using this latter expression, I was not advancing any 

 opinion of my own, as Mr. Tansley seems to think, and 

 hence my supposed inconsistency, but simply stating 

 what I conceive to be the generally accepted idea, 

 in accordance with the dictum that evolution proceeds 

 " from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous." My 

 object then was simply to point out that among these 

 so-called highly-advanced flowers blue does not pre- 

 ponderate ; while at the same time many so-called 

 simple flowers are blue. 



On carefully looking over the remarks on the 

 examples I brought forward, I cannot think that any 

 case has been shown against me, except as to the 

 Veronicas. I give up the Veronicas in deference to 

 Miiller, who says that the genus is by no means a 

 primitive one in its order. " The symmetrical 

 flowers " and other characters of Veronica are widely 

 removed from the " primitive type," presumably the 

 hypothetical ancestor. It thus appears, by-the-way, 

 that Miiller does not consider symmetry a mark of 

 lowliness. 



With regard to the orchids, surely Mr. Tansley 

 cannot think he has met my argument by his 

 quotation from Grant Allen, to the effect that they 

 have mostly got beyond the monochromatic stage 

 altogether. They are still amongst the " mostly 

 highly advanced flowers," and are not blue; which 

 is all I required of them. 



With regard to the orders Boraginacese and Cam- 

 panulacere, I do not know where they are usually 

 placed in the scale of advance by the authorities, but 

 I should think, below Orchidacese, Composite and 

 Leguminosoe, although containing a, larger percentage 

 of blue than any one of these. I am referring here 

 to our native plants only. 



As to the Compositae, Grant Allen's hypothesis is 

 that the yellow ligulate ones have advanced beyond 

 the blue stage — it is the primitive forms of the 

 order which are blue. In other words, the yellow 

 are more advanced than the blue ; this is quite 

 all my argument required. And if such a process 

 of advance is constantly taking place, who would 

 expect to find any preponderance of blue among the 

 more advanced flowers ? Mr. Tansley is surely 

 unfortunate in the quotations he brings forward 

 against me ! 



With regard to Verbaseum, Muller's list of visitors 

 to V. phanicaan, which I presume is the one in 



question, contains five species of bees, as well as the 

 one very abundant species of Syrphidre ; and Hepatica 

 is stated to be visited by " bees and Syrphidee." It is 

 perhaps, a little " startling " to find that a writer like 

 Miiller, while labouring to find support for a theory, 

 should make a statement which entirely destroys it. 

 And yet there are many things recorded in the 

 "Fertilization of Flowers" which are directly 

 opposed to the theory in question. In this particular 

 case it may, perhaps, be accounted for by the fact 

 that the statement in question is the result of ex- 

 perience, while the theory rests more or less on 

 assumption. 



I am sorry to find that Mr. Tansley thinks I have 

 misused -this statement by giving the wrong context. 

 As far as I remember, I gave no context at all. I 

 did, however, use the word "bee" instead of 

 " anthophilous insect." If the statement is true of 

 anthophilous insects it is true of bees, which are 

 anthophilous ; therefore, it was quite legitimate to 

 make the substitution. I never imagined, nor do I 

 yet think, that the argument gained anything by the 

 change ; I simply wished to direct special attention 

 to bees — my special subject. I presume I also 

 omitted the words "in general" — -is this what Mr. 

 Tansley means by saying I have given the wrong 

 context ? — but my argument is not really affected by 

 the expression. 



I maintain, that for any race of insects to develop 

 a race of flowers by their selective action on 

 Darwinian principles, they must co?ifine themselves to 

 those varying in the right directio7i. These varieties 

 must be carefully selected for many generations, to 

 the exclusion of those not varying in the right 

 direction. Even if they had "hereditary pre- 

 ferences," they could not differentiate a new race, 

 unless they confined themselves to those varying in 

 the direction of this choice. And how can they 

 obtain an "hereditary preference," say, for blue, 

 except by being used to blue flowers for generations ? 

 And if the "hereditary preference" requires genera- 

 tions of blue flowers to develop it, what assistance 

 can it be in evolving the same from a race of white 

 or yellow ? 



According to the Darwinian philosophy, a chance 

 or aimless variation obtains some advantage in the 

 struggle for existence, and leaves a stronger and 

 more numerous progeny. In the case of flowers, the 

 advantage is supposed to arise from the cross-fertiliza- 

 tion effected by insects, etc. A few forms differing 

 slightly from the rest in colour, etc., would be crossed 

 freely with the normal type, and so be lost, unless 

 some race of insects confined themselves strictly for 

 many generations to these few chance variations. 

 And apart from the question of taste, how could any 

 race of insects obtain sufficient food if they thus 

 confined themselves ? 



No, if they "wander about, getting their food on 

 whatever flowers they find it," they cannot evolve a 



