» 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



cryptogams, many of these latter must undoubtedly 

 have been coloured as at present ; and it is surely a 

 fair assumption that phanerogams partook of their 

 colours, and, further, the flowers, however rudimen- 

 tary — being but stunted branches — almost certainly 

 partook of the colours of the young leaves or branches 

 producing them. Is this an unreasonable assumption 

 — much less an " evolutionary impossibility " ? 



But then, the selectionist may say again that 

 primitive flowers were to begin with hermaphrodite 

 or anemophilous, and needed not the office of insects 

 for their fecundation ; this arrangement, however, 

 being disadvantageous to the plants, male and female 

 organs were ultimately produced separately, and so, 

 to ensure fertilization, the aid of insects was called 

 in, and to ensure their visits brilliant colours must 

 be — or at least were — produced to attract them. 

 That is to say, they produced the colours to attract 

 - themselves. This appears to be the line of argument. 



As things now exist we may certainly admit the 

 advantages of cross-fertilization, but cannot fail to 

 recognise its disadvantages too, and may even fail to 

 see the original necessity for it any more than at 

 present. This, however, I am not competent to 

 determine, and may perhaps be excused for not 

 wishing to follow the selectionist into all the rami- 

 fications of an admittedly intricate subject, lest I 

 should deserve to be classed with those of whom it 

 has been said that they rush in where angels fear to 

 tread. Mr. Tansley will do well— if he has not 

 already done so — to peruse the eleventh chapter of Mr. 

 Wallace's last work,* wherein he will find the subject 

 treated in this author's usual impartial spirit. To a 

 mere dabbler like myself his exposition appears to be 

 an exhaustive one, and yet this gentleman modestly 

 denominates it " a mere outline sketch." 



My remarks about the relations of long and short- 

 tongued insects to flowers are " based upon a miscon- 

 ception." Does Mr. Tansley mean a misconception 

 of the facts, or as to his interpretation of them ? I 

 cannot help thinking that if my argument is based 

 upon a misconception, some portion at least of his is 

 equally founded upon a misapprehension ; hence, 

 perhaps, some mutual misunderstanding. 



The importation of the matter into the argument 

 was his, not mine. 



As regards the advantages and disadvantages of 

 primitive open flowers, whilst allowing due weight 

 to Mr. Tansley's argument, I cannot but think that 

 the disadvantages set forth are very greatly overrated, 

 and that the balance is in favour of open as against 

 closed ; but this is of course pure speculation. f 



* "Darwinism," A. Russel Wallace. 



f I do not at all object that so few species of insects have 

 become specially adapted lo particular species of flowers. 

 What I do object to is that, seeing how few have been so 

 adapted, the selectionist should seize upon these few instances 

 and parade them as if they were incontrovertible evidence in 

 favour of his theory— regardless of the fact that non-specialised 

 flowers and insects exceed them probably by a hundred — aye, 

 a thousand — fold. 



133 



Perhaps the term " trouble " used by me was not a 

 particularly happy one, but one, I venture to think, 

 that will commend itself to most ordinary readers. 

 Those who have watched the humble-bee's struggles- 

 to gain entrance into, say, an antirrhinum will readily 

 comprehend my use of the term. 



Mr. Tansley's argument about the semi-domesti- 

 cated condition of the hive-bee, and the consequent 

 modification of its original habits, is undoubtedly 

 entitled to some consideration. He must not, how- 

 ever, lose sight of the fact that most of the experi- 

 ments recorded by Sir John Lubbock and others, 

 were made with hive and not wild bees. If, there- 

 fore, my argument, based upon my own observations 

 of these creatures' habits, is in any degree fallacious, 

 so also is that of those who derive confirmation of 

 their theories from experiments made upon these 

 same under more purely artificial conditions. 



I hardly know how to answer Mr. Tansley's- 

 tentative query, so modestly put forth. Let me 

 assure him that for many past years I have had — and 

 still have, rare facilities for observing the habits of 

 wild— as well as hive — bees. I am now resident in 

 one of the most lovely spots in the Cotswolds, in the 

 midst of extensive woods, lofty hills and deep valleys 

 — the^whole neighbourhood furnishing a rich fauna 

 and flora ; and having abundant leisure, I devote it, 

 during that period of the year when insects are active, 

 to the study of insect and vegetable life. I cannot, 

 however, aspire to be considered a specialist ; be 

 may, therefore, write me down a naturalist— and 

 one, I hope, who knows how to make use of his 

 eyes. 



How purely assumptive is the opinion that insects- 

 whose tongues were becoming longer were at the same 

 time increasing in intelligence roust be apparent to 

 every reader of Science-Gossip. It may, or it may 

 not, have been so — we have, however, as much right 

 to assume that a long-legged man is more intelligent 

 than a short-legged ; that because the neck of the 

 giraffe so far exceeds in length that of any other 

 ruminant, or that because the legs of the Phalangida;,. 

 Tipulidae, etc., are more attenuated than most other 

 creeping and flying things, that they, too, must 

 surpass in intelligence others of their kind. Yet we 

 have not a tittle of evidence to support so wild a 

 a belief ; nor does it appear to me to be a legitimate 

 conclusion that because certain organs have been 

 specialised, to adapt them to certain conditions, that, 

 therefore, a corresponding advance in intelligence 

 has taken place. Have we not a right, too, to assume 

 that the short-tongued insects were not stationary, 

 but were also advancing towards perfection — likewise 

 progressing in intelligence. 



I cannot help taking exception to Hermann 

 Miiller's remarks— quoted by Mr. Tansley— that 

 ' ' insects'" whose bodily organisation is least adapted 

 for a floral diet, are also least ingenious and skilful in 

 seeking and obtaining their food." It does not 



