106 
Psyche 
[June-Sept. 
ceiving no encouragement in this direction from mineralo- 
gists I conceived and published a solution based on the 
hypothesis of an organic origin. That this hypothesis has 
the weight of evidence in its favor is apparent from two 
considerations. The object is enclosed in an ironstone con- 
cretion. Organic matter as a nucleus is frequently re- 
sponsible for initiating the chemical and physical changes 
that produce concretions, as witness the well-known fossil- 
bearing nodules from Pennsylvanian strata on Mazon Creek, 
Illinois. Secondly, the structure of the fossil is apparently 
not correctable with any produced by inorganic processes. 
Inasmuch as Celliforma favosites is definitely from Upper 
Cretaceous strata, and as no social Hymenoptera themselves 
have yet been reported from strata older than Eocene, 
Bequaert and Carpenter (p. 50) intimate that such evidence 
suggesting the existence of the social habit among insects in 
Cretaceous time should be received with great reservations. 
Do these writers support the idea that the social habit 
appeared suddenly by accident, or special creation, and was 
not the result of a long, gradual evolution ? Moreover, rela- 
tively little is known of Cretaceous insect life as compared 
with that of the Eocene, so that the discovery of a Creta- 
ceous social insect is by no means precluded. 
“The counterpart of the fossil is lined by shallow cavities 
which fit over the ends of the projections. One portion of 
this counterpart also has projections like those on the other 
half, so that when the parts of the concretion are placed 
together, the dome-shaped projections extend inwards from 
both sides. This extraordinary condition, which is not men- 
tioned by Dr. Brown, seems to require an explanation, if the 
specimen is regarded as a nest” (p. 51) . The portion of the 
counterpart referred to is at one end of the specimen, near 
the margin, and it is only in this portion that the condition 
described occurs. Have Bequaert and Carpenter never seen 
disintegrating nests in which portions around the margin of 
the comb are loose and turned back in inverted position on 
the main portion of the comb? Instead therefore of dis- 
crediting the fossil as a wasp nest, the recognition of this 
condition, it seems to me, is distinctly a positive contribution 
toward certainty of the original identification. 
My critics chide me gently for leaving “to the reader the 
