HA RD WJCKE' S SCIENCE- G OS SI P. 



is said to have been non-existent." Although the 

 following passage does not say that colour was non- 

 existent (for I suppose, wherever there is vegetation, 

 there is colour, i.e. green), it does say that there was 

 an absence of conspicuousness, which after all is the 

 main point. On p. 161, " Origin of Species," 

 Murray's Ed., 1886, Darwin says, "Flowers . . . 

 have been rendered conspicuous in contrast with the 

 green leaves, and in consequence, at the same time 

 beautiful, so that they may be 'easily observed by 

 insects .... Several plants habitually produce two 

 kinds of flowers ; one kind open, and coloured so as 

 to attract insects .... Hence we may conclude, 

 that if insects had not been developed on the face of the 

 earth, our plants would not have been decked -with 

 beautiful flowers, but would have produced only such 

 poor flowers as we see on our fir, oak, nut and ash 

 trees, on grasses, spinnach, docks, and nettles, which 

 are all fertilised through the agency of the wind." 



I do not suppose for a moment that this important 

 passage is unknown to the author of this article ; on 

 the contrary, I presume that he is acquainted with it, 

 but begs to differ. 



Supposing we reject Darwin's explanation, what 

 theory can we suggest to supersede it ? Our author 

 thinks that flowers " were originally brightly 

 coloured." Haeckel in his " Schopfungs-Geschichte," 

 8th Ed., says, " With full certainty can we assert 

 .... that no flower-plants (then) existed, and only 

 during the primary period were they developed from 

 fern-like cryptogams. ... It is most probable, 

 that the immediate ancestors of the phanerogams were 

 the scale ferns, or the Selagi?iace<z.'" These plants are, 

 I believe, of a uniform green colour, that is, have no 

 conspicuous parts. The question consequently arises, 

 "when and how did these lvcopods in their develop- 

 ment into phanerogams, become possessed of con- 

 spicuous parts, i.e., coloured flowers?" If we are 

 told they were caused by the products of physio- 

 logical processes ; we ask why should those processes 

 produce no pigments in ferns, yet do so in the slightly 

 more advanced form of the same plants? 



It further seems to me, that too much stress is laid 

 upon the ability of insects to appreciate colour, all 

 that Darwin required, as I understand the above 

 quoted passage, was, that they should be able to 

 appreciate the difference between the conspicuous 

 patch, and the sombre uniform surroundings. Clodd 

 puts this very well on p. 89, " Story of Creation," 

 whichever plants made most show of colour would 

 sooner catch the eye of insects, however dim their 

 Perception of the difference in colours might be, and 

 and would thus get fertilised before plants which 

 made less show. Thus have insects been the main 

 cause in the propagation of flowering plants, and 

 plants in return developing the colour sense in 

 insects." Or, as our author prefers it, " they pro- 

 duced the colours to attract themselves." 



On p. 132, we have a return to the style of the 



pious writers on popular natural history of fifty years 

 ago, and which one was almost hoping had been 

 rooted out for ever, by the advance made by know- 

 ledge during this century. The colours of flowers 

 have a higher function than the mere attraction of 

 insects, namely that of ministering to the happiness 

 of man, by gratifying that sense of beauty with which 

 he has been endowed. Consequently before the 

 evolution of man, the flowers were minus a function, 

 there was waste ; for all those thousands, aye 

 hundreds of thousands, of years a world full of beauty 

 was wasting its sweetness on the desert air, because 

 he for whom they were created had not yet divested 

 himself of his tail, nor educated his taste for the 

 beautiful, above the colours of something less poetical 

 than flowers. Whence, may I ask, the "sense of 

 beauty," if not from the continued contemplation of 

 existing beauty ? 



However, this is already too long, so I conclude 

 with the words of Mr. Clodd, " Story of Creation," 

 p. 83. "The primary function for which the organs 

 of plants known as flowers exist, is not that which 

 man has so long assumed. He once thought that 

 the earth was the centre of the universe, until 

 astronomy dispelled the illusion, and there yet lingers 

 in him an old Adam of conceit, that everything on the 

 earth has for its sole end and aim his advantage and 

 service. Evolution will dispel that illusion." 



A. ABSELL, Jun. 



P.S. — Darwin has also a note on this subject 

 (" Origin of Species," p. 160). " If beautiful objects 

 had been created solely for man's gratification, it 

 ought to be shown that there was less beauty on the 

 face of the earth than since he came on the stage." 



TWO REMARKABLE INSTRUMENTS. 



OF making of instruments there is no end : the 

 patent office is full of crotchets. But two 

 instruments, recently invented by Mr. John Aitken, 

 F.R.S., deserve more than a passing notice, not only 

 on account of their ingenuity and attractiveness, but 

 because of the beneficial sanitary results that are 

 naturally expected from the use of them. By using 

 the one the number of dust-particles in a cubic inch 

 of air can be numbered ; the other can detect dele- 

 terious matter in the air by means of colour. They 

 are both required for the complete sanitary detective 

 work. The one is the dust-counter and the other is 

 the dust-detector. 



The writer made experiments with the first in its 

 crude and heavy form, and was perfectly astonished 

 at the magical effects. But it is now made in a 

 portable form, not larger than a cigar-case, for the 

 pocket, and about eight ounces in weight. Both 

 instruments depend upon this principle, that the 

 dust-particles in the air seize the moisture from the 



