Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
Aug.,  1886. 
Insects  and  Floicers. 
399 
vitiated  by  a  larger  intermixture  of  falsity  and  fiction  than  might 
be  imagined  possible  in  an  experimental  science. 
SprengePs  work  was  published  in  1793,  and  in  1862  Darwin 
wrote  his  " Fertilization  of  Orchids/'  which  was  enthusiastically 
received,  but  which  gave  rise  to  the  well-founded  objection  that  in 
most  orchids  the  operation  of  insect  visitors  was  only  indirectly  con- 
cluded from  the  structure  of  the  flowers- 
"  Criticisms  near  the  mark  or  further  from  the  mark,  or  even  alto- 
gether far  and  away  from  any  mark/'  only  led  to  the  conviction 
that  there  is  much  more  in  the  shape  of  a  petal  and  the  position  of 
a  plant-hair  than  was  formerly  supposed,  and  that  insects  do  not 
merely  loiter  about  brilliant  blossoms  in  idle  satisfaction  or  for 
necessary  sustenance,  but  that  they  have  a  mission  to  increase  the 
beauty  and  prolong  the  life  of  flowers,  and  it  is  added  that,  so  well 
is  this  mission  understood,  that  flowers,  in  their  turn,  learn  to  dis- 
tinguish between  profitable  and  unprofitable  visitors,  and  grow  to 
provide  special  arrangements  for  allurement  or  exclusion.  This  be- 
ing stated,  we  must  either  allow  subtle,  secret  meanings  to  color, 
shape,  and  all  the  beautiful,  familiar  things  taken  once  upon  a  time 
for  granted,  as  a  part  of  natural  development,  to  be  one  of  the  forces 
in  the  great  heaving  life  sea,  or  else  reject  the  whole  theory  as  ex- 
travagant and  mistaken.  Going  still  further,  we  are  told  that  it  is 
to  insects  we  owe  the  beauty  of  our  gardens,  the  sweetness  of  our 
fields,  and  that  to  them  alone  flowers  are  indebted  for  their  very 
existence,  and  when  we  come  to  this,  the  most  casual  inquirer  is  led 
to  find  out  what  grounds  exist  for  it,  how  far  it  is  borne  out  by  evi- 
dence, and  if  we  are  really  bound  to  accept  as  truth  that,  should 
butterflies,  flies,  and  bees  be  exterminated,  the  world  would  no  longer 
know  the  beauty  of  flowers. 
Fairly  to  examine  the  true  Knight-Darwin  theory,  it  will  be  well 
to  learn  from  their  own  words  to  what  conclusions  these  able  men 
arrived  as  the  result  of  their  researches.  We  shall  then  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  remark  that  the  rolling  stone  of  a  new  doctrine,  once .  set  in 
motion,  is  never  in  want  of  a  friendly  shove.  We  see  how  hasty 
conclusions  are  made  to  harmonize  with  preconceived  ideas  and  ex- 
travagant notions  are  issued  as  true  coin. 
The  favorite  text  of  Darwin's  interpreters  is  his  much  misappre- 
hended maxim,  "Nature  abhors  perpetual  self-fertilization and,  as 
if  foreseeing  that  such  an  axiom  might  lead  to  mistakes,  he  defines 
