68 
NATURE NOTES 
fertility,” much less does it support the theory that “ the two 
forms stand in the reciprocal relation of different sexes to each 
other.” Even Dr. Weiss allows that the primrose “is provided 
with efficient means for self-pollination.” 
At this season, when the primrose is in bloom, every one 
interested in the relation of flowers and insects to each other, 
may, by his own observation, judge whether the few insects 
which he sees — and most frequently none at all — amongst 
“ large masses of primroses,” can effect any measurable cross- 
fertilisation of the flowers. If efficient cross-fertilisation did not 
take place, and self-fertilisation were impossible — according to 
the latter of the two theories of Darwin mentioned above — then 
the result must be — as H. Muller well observes in such cases — 
that the primrose would gradually but inevitably disappear. 
[We are sorry to have to announce that, shortly after this 
article reached us, the writer’s life came to its close. The Rev. 
Edward Bell was born at Uppingham, January 26, 1829, and 
was educated at Uppingham School and Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge. He acted as curate of Gainford, Durham, and perpetual 
curate of Upper Armley, Leeds, and from 1868 to 1890 was 
vicar of St. John’s, Wakefield. Here his health broke down 
from overwork and he retired, devoting all his time to Natural 
History pursuits, and occasionally contributing to magazines. 
Having, after a few years’ rest, recovered much of his health, 
he became a great walker, being particularly fond of Surrey 
commons. He was a keen and accurate observer, specially 
devoting his attention to flowers and bees, and well earning the 
title he gave himself of “A Field Naturalist.” Under this 
nom de guerre he published “The Primrose and Darwinism” in 
1902, in reviewing which work we differed from some of its 
conclusions. In sending us the above paper on P'ebruary 17, 
he expressed a wish to preserve his anonymity on account of his 
indifferent health which rendered him indisposed for controversy ; 
but only a few days later he met with a shocking accident, 
upsetting an oil lamp, was dreadfully burnt and only survived 
a fortnight. He died at Poole on March 5, before the proof of 
his article could reach him. He was anxious it should appear 
in this number so that other observers might check it during 
the present primrose season. We have obtained the consent of 
the writer’s family to this posthumous revelation of his identity, 
and shall reserve our own comments on his observations and 
inferences until our next number. — Ed. N.N.] 
