Examine the cell.

of a sweeping of an equal sphere at all? It is six-sided, almost mathematically correct. The basal plates of the rhomb do not form a plane, but contain three faces or oblique angles too, so that I cannot see where the "sweeping of equal spheres" finds place in this construction. They may start the cell by sweeping a sphere, but there is no sphere left by the time the cell is finished. The bees measure the cell-distances in the layer by the size of their own bodies; and then the principle of construction is hexagonal and not circular. The cell of the humble-bee is circular; that of Melipona domestica circular, and oftentimes a "gross imitation of the cell of the hive-bee." But can any person say that the cell of the hive-bee is not the proper cell, devised and perfected by nature, and that the humble-bee cell and that of Melipona are only variations? As a rule, it is the humble-bee that drives the hive bee away. What ground, then, has Darwin for applying his theory to this construction at all? Do his instances prove his argument? Can they not be read entirely the other way-namely, that they are but degraded variations of the proper cell? And if we find that Darwin has been absolutely mistaken in applying his theory to this one insect, what value are we to attach to his other instances of proof? The cell of the humble-bee ought to be far and away superior to the cell of the hive-bee, but it is not so.

66

Darwin, moreover, names it as the most wonderful of all known instincts, that of the hive-bee." In my opinion he is wrong. The ant shows a far more wonderful display of what is called "instinct." I shall refer later on to the ant. The bee, ant, spider, and man show similar knowledge of exactly similar subjects. To say that the bee works without this knowledge, but simply owing to "blind evolution by natural selection, having taken advantage of numerous successive slight modifications of simpler instincts" (which modifications and instances are not given), is to me a proposition quite untenable.

A hive swarms. A certain number of the older bees may, or may not, accompany the queen and the young bees. These may or may not teach the new swarm how to begin their labours and use their little planes- like our carpenter's planes -to level off and reduce to a uniform thickness the walls of their cells. And let it be noted how beautiful and perfect the wall of the hexagon is-never breaking into an adjoining cell, but a perfectly watertight compartment for holding its store of honey, food, or young larvæ. In my opinion there is no necessity for the young brood to be taught how to go to work any more than it is taught how to swarm. In the realm of nature throughout the whole universe we see around us, certain common vital laws rule. A young hive-bee goes to work with its

little tools and builds its cell in the most cheery confidence, because it knows that food in flowers has been provided for it, and because it has been designed to build the cell exactly in this special manner to store its food. It has been as much designed to do this as it has been designed to fertilise plants. Will any person who objects to the word "designed" kindly explain how it is that numerous species of plants depend for existence and propagation almost entirely upon the visits of bees? We know of no other principle of construction that will hold so much liquid so well and in so small a space as that of the cell of the hive-bee. There is the cell of the mason-wasp, which is a very wonderful structure too, although oftentimes a great nuisance to us in New Zealand. But this cell is round or oblong, with no oblique angles-a much more simple construction than that of the hive-bee. Moreover, it is built of clay, not of wax. How is the doctrine of natural selection to explain this one vast difference of material in exactly a similar operation? True, its whole purpose is different, but nevertheless a cell is built.*

But after the swarm has been taken, away the young bee flies. It may have to fly a mile or more; but it brings back its nectar, unerringly selects its new home out of a row of perhaps twenty boxes, and sets to work just as I suppose its ancestors have worked throughout all time.

The dividing wall of the two layers of cells are named "basal rhombic plates." I cannot define more than three plates with clearly-formed and beautiful oblique angles. Yet in his conclusion Darwin says, "the bees, of course, no more knowing that they swept their spheres at one particular distance from each other than they knew what are the several angles of the hexagonal prisms and of the basal rhombic plates." Now, I ask any one really desirous of testing these statements-(and, notwithstanding the weight of authority Darwin makes a point of always bringing to support his arguments, I hold that every one of his statements requires the most careful testing and verifying) to look at these basal plates of the cell and ask himself whether the bee knew what it was doing or whether it did not? If not, if it only acts from the blind principle of evolution and natural selection that is immediately afterwards referred to in the conclusion, why is it that each basal plate is

*The mason-fly, by some method I cannot explain, stupefies, either by injecting a fluid or paralysing certain nerves, the spider which it has entombed in the cell with its egg. This stupefaction lasts a period of two to four months. The larvae of the fly hatch out and feed upon the beautifully preserved body of the spider. I have often thought that this process of stupefaction should be carefully investigated, in order to see whether nature has not in this matter shown us an example whereby we might preserve our meat.

exactly alike, and as mathematically correct as a spider's web? What is it that keeps these angles uniform right through the comb-wall? for a well-constructed oblique angle is not a mere blind sweeping of a sphere.

To give Darwin every credit, which I naturally wish to give. to so great a writer, I will say this: that, if this instance of natural selection in regard to the hive-bee cell he has given us offers any proof of his theory to scientific minds (I regret it does not to mine), then at best it is but an exemplification of the law of progressive adaptation of species. The hive-bee, the humble-bee, and Melipona domestica are each useful for its particular work. Red-clover, for instance, in New Zealand could not be fertilised until we introduced the humble-bee. It is also said in Canterbury that the humble-bee in some places takes all the honey from the flowers, leaving little or none for the hive-bee. The cell of the humble-bee should therefore be far superior to the cell of the hive-bee. But Darwin places the cell of the humble-bee at the bottom of the scale, and most unmistakably says that Melipona domestica and the hive-bee cells have been naturally selected from it. To say that the humble-bee is evolved by natural selection from the hive-bee, or vice versa, or that the hive-bee cell is naturally selected from the Mexican-bee cell, looks to me quite absurd, even from Darwin's own proof. As Pierre Huber distinctly says, "The Mexican-bee cell looks like a gross imitation of a portion of the hive-bee cell." Moreover, we have in New Zealand many native bees which build simple single cells in the ground for storing their food. The humble-bee cell is almost a clay cell. Wasps in Europe build their nests of clay. But all these are quite different structures to the finished cell of wax of the hive-bee. Again, even in the hive-bee cells there is no blind sweeping of equal spheres, seeing that the cells for the queen-bees are considerably larger than those for the common bees of the hive, and are also differently constructed.*

*I attach the following description of the cell-formation and work of the queen-bee as bearing upon the question. I regret my inability to give the author's name: "The province and occupation of the queen-bee consist in laying the eggs from which originate the prodigious multitudes that people a hive. Every bee in the community is apparently aware of this fact, and consequently treats her with due respect, even to the extent of never turning its back upon her until, the hive being overcrowded and a new queen having been made, a swarm is thought necessary, when all respect disappears, and, should she show the least reluctance, she is forced out to seek new quarters with other emigrants. The creation of a queen is one of the greatest wonders of that most wonderful of insect communities-a hive of bees; for no sooner does the old queen die, or the members of the community become convinced that they are overcrowded, and that a swarm is necessary, than they begin to build one or more queen-cells, which are utterly unlike the well-known hexagonal cells in which honey is stored or the brood of either workers or drones is reared,

There are many other points to be considered in this matter of honeycomb-construction and the cell-making instinct of the hive-bee, but I will rest content with the points I have already raised, merely asking any unprejudiced person whether Darwin's premises and conclusion are borne out in this one instance by his theory of natural selection. In Brazil there is a bee that builds its comb on the very outmost twigs of lofty trees, as a protection against climbing and marauding enemies. Wherein does this exhibition of intelligence differ much from the New Guinea natives building their huts in lofty trees for similar protective purposes? To my mind, very little. Yet we are asked to admit that bees live their life and work in sole accordance with a blind principle of natural selection.

being in shape and size not unlike an acorn. In each of these, if more than one, either a worker-egg-worker- and drone eggs being dissimilar, and laid in different comb-or a worker and worker-larva not more than three days old is placed, and the larva is fed with peculiar food, called royal pap or "royal jelly," with the result that in sixteen days-five days less than would be required for a worker and nine less than for a drone-a queen, or perfect female, is produced. She alone has a life extending to years, that of the workers being limited to months at the longest."

III. BOTANY.

ART. XLVI.-Notes on MS. Descriptions of Collections made during Captain Cook's First Voyage.

By T. KIRK, F.L.S.

[Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 25th September, 1895.] Ir affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Sir James Hector to give a short account of the valuable typewritten MS. which he has had laid upon the table this evening. It will be remembered by all present that the most famous of modern navigators, Captain Cook, was accompanied on his first voyage by two naturalists who took their place amongst the foremost scientific men of the day-Sir Joseph Banks and Dr. Solander-the entire cost of the natural-history investigations. made during the voyage being defrayed by the generosity of the former. Captain Cook first landed on the shore of New Zealand at Poverty Bay, on Sunday, the 8th October, 1769, and subsequently visited Tolaga Bay, Opuaragi (Mercury Bay), the Thames River, the Bay of Islands, Queen Charlotte Sound, Admiralty Bay, &c., during which the naturalists collected about 360 species of flowering-plants and ferns. But they were no mere collectors: folio drawings of most of the plants were made by Sydney Parkinson, one of the draughtsmen engaged for the voyage, and on the return of the expedition to England were engraved on copper; while excellent MS. descriptions were prepared by Dr. Solander, the entire cost being defrayed by Banks. Unhappily, these plates and descriptions have never been published. At the instance of Sir James Hector, the Board of Governors of the New Zealand Institute authorised the necessary outlay for copying the descriptions in London, and the MS. is now submitted for inspection. Sir Joseph Hooker, in the introduction to the original "Flora Nova-Zelandiæ," speaks of Solander's MS. in very high terms, and from such references as I have already been able to make I can heartily indorse his testimony to its merit. It is most unfortunate that for a century and a quarter plates and descriptions alike have remained inaccessible to local botanists. Had they been published by their