Further, the instructive preference must be hereditary; for what could a single generation of bees do? The life-time of a bee is short-in many cases only a single season-it has scarcely time even to get educated in the matter of colour, much less to effect any alteration in the race of flowers. In fact, if the preference were not hereditary the tastes of the bee would vary from generation to generation, and one would undo the work of the other.

I think Hermann Müller's conclusions on this point would have been more in place as an appendage to my own paper, than in a professed criticism of the

same.

And it is strange after such a statement, and the previous admissions that coloured flowers are not developed, but only "stereotyped and perpetuated " by insect selection, and that the bee's taste is simply a matter of education, to read Mr. Tansley's words: "I think, in fact, we may safely conclude that . . . red and blue, appearing as they do in flowers highly developed in other respects, were evolved through the selective action of long-tongued insects such as bees and diurnal Lepidoptera."

I cannot make out from what premises this remarkable conclusion is drawn: it remains an inscrutable mystery how the facts and arguments of the paper itself are supposed to oppose my views.

I am glad to find that Mr. Tansley agrees with me in thinking that the red hawthorn ought, according to the bee-selection theory, to attract bees more than the white one. As far as I can make out, it does not, and therefore goes against the theory.

The word "probably " used in my former paper, I admit makes the argument from the red hawthorn a poor one if it can be shown that bees visit it more frequently than the white, the particular argument fails altogether: as far as I know, this has not been done.

With regard to the concluding paragraph of Mr. Tansley's criticism, it is doubtless unwise to argue from the existence in flowers of certain colours which cannot have been influenced in their development by insect selection, that the colours of flowers in general cannot have been so developed it is, however, a legitimate and necessary conclusion, that they may have been developed without the selective action.

Carefully considered in connection with the general principles of natural selection, I think a very strong

not sufficiently advanced to receive any benefit in the form of cross-fertilisation, and in the latter, those which are too advanced for it-which are already fertilised, and probably rifled of their honey, altogether or in part. The reddish flowers obtain no advantage from their colour: the bee obtains no honey from the unopened flower, and very little-if any-from the faded one.

I am assuming here-I know not with what authority, but the reddish tints in question do seem akin to the bluish shade which began to appear in Mr. Grant Allen's developing monk's-hood-that such colours in white flowers are the chance variations out of which red flowers are supposed to have been evolved by selection. As I have shown, neither bee nor flower obtains any benefit, and no development of colour can be supposed to take place.

This is a strong argument, but it becomes stronger when taken in connection with the educational theory brought forward by Mr. Tansley.

The bee, according to this theory, has been educated by experience to go to red flowers: it is not attracted by red as a colour. Why, then, should it pick out pink buds, and fading flowers, yielding no honey, or very little? And if it did, consider the educational effect. Will not the bee learn to distrust, and avoid red flowers?

But as I understand Mr. Tansley, he does not believe that the bee carefully selected those flowers showing a slight tendency to redness, and by accumulating such variations evolved the fullycoloured blossom: he rather seems to insinuate, that the flower may have been as perfectly coloured as the red leaf before the bee's action came into playthe bee "stereotyped" the flower, but not the leaf.

It is to be remarked that this theory, equally with that of development, requires a fixed taste, and a constant exercise of the same, on the part of the bee: it must be carefully examined in connection with the colours of the flowers receiving the greatest number of bee-visits.

NOTES ON FLYING-FISH.

By Surgeon G. D. TREVOR-ROPER, R.N. RAVELLERS along the paths of Nature ever

These facts are, that many white umbelliferous flowers are pink before opening, and that other flowers-hawthorn, Christmas rose, white evening primrose-are so when beginning to fade.

Suppose for a moment that chance variations such as these occur in certain races of white flowers, when as yet red and blue are not. What advantage will the flowers obtain in the struggle for existence ? Suppose that bees are attracted by the red, and prefer it to the white. In the former case, they visit flowers

with a feverish anxiety to know the why and wherefore. Whether it be the history of the past, the levelling of mountains, and the upheaval of continents, with all their accompanying phenomena, or the study of things existing both animate and inanimate, they all give ample scope for reflection, thought, speculation, and the building up of golden theories too often to be dashed to the ground by a few moments' sober thought. All of us have heard of, and perhaps

marvelled at, the active little Periophthalmos, the extraordinary Ornithorhynchus, and leaf-like Phyllium, but we look with less astonishment at the strange fact, that Nature has created a fish that flies.

It is an old tale of the sailor-mother who, on being told of the existence of flying-fish, remarked, "Ah! Jack, I've heard tell of mountains of sugar, and rivers of rum, but fish that fly, Jack, na! na!" But since this good lady expressed her incredulity, the world has been made smaller; fast ships traverse the seas in

Exocœtus, or true flying-fish allied to the gar, and the Dactylopterus or flying gurnards. It is the former of these about which I wish to speak, having had considerable chances of observing them. I have now a wing, in my possession, of one captured off the coast of Brazil, measuring ten inches in length. On that coast, as well as in the West Indies, they run to a considerable size. Those in the Indian Ocean, however, are very much smaller, few of them exceeding eight inches from snout to tail.

all directions, and have made lands, that were once almost inaccessible, become the scene of a holiday trip, and the flying-fish an object of daily occurrence. Yet, as Professor Moseley tells us in his "Notes of a Naturalist on board the 'Challenger,'" the question of their method of flight is by no means settled. This is not so much to be wondered at, as their flight is so rapid that it is most difficult and often impossible for the eye to follow it.

We have the two genera of flying-fish: the

All day long, these little "skip jacks," as the sailors call them, are being "put up" by the ship, and flitting away on every side. But very frequently, also, large shoals are seen flying a considerable distance in frantic endeavour to escape from their enemies whose name is legion. Like moths and many bipeds they are attracted by a bright and dazzling light, and wake from their dream often to find themselves on the hard, dry deck, to be transferred to the sailors' mess; a welcome change from

salt provisions, and, indeed, most excellent eating, for those who do not mind bone.

It is rare not to find a few on the decks in early morning, that have come in over the gangway, a height of seven feet above the water-line. They often fly higher than this, as many a fair traveller in a mail steamer can tell who has been startled at dead of night by the flopping of a flying-fish through a port into the sanctity of her state-cabin.

As regards the much debated question of their flight. After carefully observing them for some time, I have come to the conclusion, that their great pectorals are never by any chance used to strike the air with. I have come to this conclusion, not only from watching them from various points of view, but also from dissection, and their so-called flight is nothing but a series of prodigious leaps. Let us look for a moment at the movements and structure of these wing-like fins. At rest they are closed, the flat surfaces looking inwards and outwards, and their direction backwards and slightly upwards.

As the wing is brought forward the rays are spread out, and the internal and external surfaces become superior and inferior, the first and longest ray foremost. The wing is continued forward in this position to a little beyond the right angle, when it is turned, in order to strike the water either directly backwards, or backwards and upwards. The extremity of the fully extended wing is also bent backwards, giving it the appearance of a scoop, and thus we see what an immense power there is for grasping the water and throwing it backwards. On leaping simply to get clear of the ship they make one or two vigorous strokes, and with their wings in the position of rest, pass through the air for a few yards and then fall. It may also be noticed that they strike the water as they enter it. When being pursued, however, they can cover a distance of over one hundred yards of space. This, with nothing to help them but the original stroke or strokes, would be impossible. In these long flights it can be seen, and I have found, standing with my eye as nearly on a level with the water as possible the best, watching them as they go away from me, that their wings are spread out to their full extent, with of course their flat surfaces superior and inferior, and there is no doubt that in this position they act after the manner of a parachute. But often this cannot be of much service to them, as they frequently go dead "in the wind's eye." I believe that there are two ways by which they progress: one, by giving a vigorous stroke with their wings-hitting the water precisely as they do in swimming-on coming to the summit of a wave; by this they are again raised into the air and propelled forwards. The other way is by a stroke of their tails, by which they not only propel themselves forward, but also are enabled to change their course.

This latter method is very similar to the movements of their relation the gar-fish. The latter I had a

good opportunity of observing the other day when lying at anchor in Aden harbour. An immense shoal of small fish (species?) were disporting themselves round our stern, and at a short distance from them, several gar-fish were swimming slowly to and fro, waiting an opportunity to seize their prey. At first it was a matter of wonder that they did not at once make a dash for a fish, but it soon became evident that the little ones when prepared, were too fast for them. On the outside of the shoal, were numerous fish of the same species, but of a very much larger size, giving one the idea of forming a bodyguard; this idea was soon dispelled, by seeing that the gars treated them with the greatest indifference, as they in turn were treated-the reason no doubt being that the garfish, unlike some young friends that I have met, have eyes in proportion to their stomachs, and find that the bigger fish would prove a serious difficulty if an attempt were made to swallow them. The lucky gar who had seized a toothsome morsel, often became an object of envy and hatred to his brother fish, who pursued him with sinister designs. It is then that the pursued, raising the anterior twothirds of his body out of water, dashes along at terrific speed for many yards, creating great disturbance in the water, and as he is never followed far whilst performing this feat, it is probable that the splashing of the water renders him invisible to, or confuses his pursuer.

To return again to the flying-fish; we find that the wing is not capable of the movements necessary to propel the fish through the air. It is true it is capable of being moved up and down, though not above the horizontal, and of course, if the wings were used in this way, and had sufficient strength, which I doubt, it would cause the fish to rise in the air; but it is apparent to the most cursory observer that they never do this. As for progression forwards, I have before stated that the wing cannot be abducted beyond a right angle, and the only movements that can be brought about are striking directly backwards, or backwards and upwards.

There is at once a striking difference in formation between this great fin and the wing of a bird. The latter has anteriorly and laterally the strong bones of the wing itself and the long primary feathers, which are first brought forward to cleave the air, and the power of flight is almost solely due to this, for the same action in the fish the fin would have to be rotated forwards 45°; a feat impossible alike from the structure of the joint, and the action of the muscles covering it. It is worthy of notice that these fish have an oval swim-bladder capable of enormous distension, nearly filling the abdominal cavity at the expense of the other organs.

These are the ideas that I have formed concerning the locomotion of the Exocati, but to speak with absolute certainty of a subject so difficult of exact observation would be most rash, and as for many

months I shall still be in the regions where they abound, I may find cause to alter my ideas; at any rate, no opportunity will be lost of carefully watching these little models of the outcome of the great 66 struggle for existence" and "survival of the fittest."

I

THE SUNFLOWER.

HAVE been much interested in reading Mr. Lett's paper on the above plant in SCIENCEGOSSIP for September, and I am glad that the mention of Helianthus in my article on "The Power of Movement in Plants," induced him to try some experiments.

I wish to say a word in reply to his generous criticism.

My paper was written in 1884, as a contribution to a series read before the Highbury Microscopical Society, and I made the statement quoted by Mr. Lett without carefully searching for modern investigations on the subject. This I the more readily did, because I had noticed on several occasions that the flower-heads in a bed of Helianthus did vary their position from east to south-east during the day. In 1886, I sent my paper precisely as it stood to the "Journal of Microscopy and Natural Science," in response to a request from Mr. Allen for some contribution.

In 1887 I carefully revised the entire paper after reading it before the Croydon Microscopical Club ; and in doing so, I took occasion to quote from Professor S. H. Vine's" Physiology of Plants" the following statement as a corollary to my former one: "The flowers, or more correctly the inflorescences of the sunflower, even when the plant is growing quite in the open, direct their superior surfaces, not upwards, but to some quarter of the compass, usually to the south-east. This peculiarity cannot, as yet, be fully accounted for, though it doubtless depends upon some special form of heliotropic irritability. Some radical organs do not, however, assume a fixed light-position, but follow the daily course of the sun to a greater or less extent. It is usually accepted as a fact that this is the case in the sunflower, but Wiesner has found that it is not so. Under normal conditions, the inflorescences of the sunflower assume a fixed lightposition, as described above; it is only when the peduncles are partly etiolated that any daily movement can be detected."

This would seem to show that there is a certain amount of truth in the popular supposition in respect of Helianthus, but that when any revolution does occur, it is a result of the abnormal condition of etiolation. This may have been the case on the occasions named by me, especially as this was noted late in summer. The experiments performed by Mr. Lett may have been made on perfectly fresh, healthy,

robust plants, in which no trace of etiolation could be found.

I find, however, in Sachs's "Lectures on the Physiology of Plants," published in 1887, the following sentence on p. 692 :-"In very sensitive plants, e.g., young flax-stems and flower-shoots of the sunflower, it is possible to notice how its apical parts follow the course of the sun from morn to eve, always inclining towards it.”

I quote this from the English edition, translated by Professor Marshall Ward, so that it seems that the notion has not wholly "passed away from the minds of modern botanists as a poet's fancy," as Mr. Lett suggests.

If it be true that the "flower-shoots" of Helianthus behave thus, why not the entire inflorescences at a later date?

The whole question is one of intense interest, and I am glad that Mr. Lett has turned his attention to it. Whatever may be the final result, I shall thankfully welcome any suggestions or experiments in relation to the subject, either in the case of Helianthus, or in that of any other plant.

I

Sutton.

H. W. S. WORSLEY-BENISON.

ASTRONOMY AND METEOROLOGY.

By JOHN BROWNING, F.R.A.S.

HAVE a prospectus and sample of a new series. of charts of the constellations, by Mr. Arthur Cottam, F.R.A.S. The sample chart represents Cassiopeia, in the scale of one-third of an inch to a degree. This is larger than any star-chart recently published. The scale is nearly that of a globe ten feet in diameter. So small a portion of the heavens is given on each chart, that the amount of distortion due to their being on a flat surface is almost inappreciable. There are thirty-six charts, and all stars are shown that are visible to the naked eye, that is, down to 6 magnitude.

Mercury will be at the least distance from the sun on November 6th.

There will be no occultation in November of any star above magnitude 5.

In November Mercury will be a morning star in Libra.

Venus will be an evening star, and will be close to Jupiter on the Ist of the month.

Mars will be an evening star.

Jupiter will be too near to the sun for observation. Saturn will be nearly stationary in Leo throughout

the month.

Meteorology.—The meteorological records have unfortunately again been painfully interesting. We hear of heavy snow lying on uncut corn.

At the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, the lowest reading of the barometer for the week ending 22nd.

September, was 29'95 in. at the beginning of the week, and the highest was 50'12 in. on Wednesday morning. The mean temperature of the air was 57 2 deg., and 0'4 deg. above the average. The general direction of the wind was N.E. No rain was measured during the week. The duration of registered bright sunshine in the week was 32 6 hours, against 49'0 hours at Glynde Place, Lewes.

For the week ending 29th September, the highest reading of the barometer was 30'09 in. on Wednesday evening, and the lowest was 29 39 in. at the end of the week. The mean temperature of the air was 55.8 deg. and o'2 deg. above the average. The general direction of the wind was N. E. Rain fell on four days of the week to the aggregate amount of o'51 of an inch. The duration of registered bright sunshine in the week was 12.7 hours, against 21.2 hours at Glynde Place, Lewes.

For the week ending 6th October, the lowest reading of the barometer was 29.09 in. on Tuesday afternoon, and the highest 29.83 in. at the end of the week. The mean temperature of the air was 42'7 deg., and no less than 113 deg. below the average. The direction of the wind was variable. Rain fell on two days of the week to the aggregate amount of O'II of an inch. The duration of registered bright sunshine in the week was 33 0 hours, against 39*1 hours at Glynde Place, Lewes.

For the week ending 13th October, the highest reading of the barometer was 30'04 in. on Monday morning, and the lowest 29 70 in. on Saturday morning. The mean temperature of the air was 45 deg., and 7.2 deg. below the average. The direction

of the wind was variable. Rain fell on Friday to the amount of o*02 of an inch. The duration of registered bright sunshine in the week was 24'6 hours, against 34 8 hours at Glynde Place, Lewes.

The isotherms or lines of equal temperature for November over the greater part of England are of the form of the letter U. From considerations of space I will give the names of only three places for each isotherm, corresponding to the top, the bottom, and the top again of each U.

The isotherm of 41° then runs through Lanark, trends down as far as the river Tyne, and then runs up again to Haddington; 42°, runs through Ayr down to Nottingham, and up to Berwick; 43°, runs from Kircudbright down to London, and up to Flamborough Head; 44°, from the Isle of Man down to Winchester, and up to Margate; 45°, Carmarthen, through Portsmouth and Beachy Head. The isotherms of 46°, 47°, and 48° run through the west of South Wales, and across Cornwall.

The average rainfall for November is two inches for the greater part of England: along the south coast for about twenty to thirty miles inland it is three inches, on the west coast it is four inches, and in some parts of North Wales and Cornwall it averages five inches; the last figure represents nearly five hundred and twenty tons of water to each acre.

N°

CLOUDS ON LAND AND SEA.*

O doubt cloud observations, with a view to forecasting the weather, have been taken since the earliest times, but of late years the method of making the observations has been systematised. Mr. Abercromby and Professor Hildebrandson, of Upsala, have agreed upon a nomenclature for the various kinds of clouds, and Mr. Abercromby now comes forward to give us in this little book a description of the different kinds of cloud, and the method of determining the direction in which a cloud is moving.

The system advocated by the author is that all clouds may be sufficiently described by ten terms, these terms denoting not only the name of the cloud, but the height at which it is formed. Then these various terms are given and fully described by the aid of diagrams. Next he gives a chapter-the direction in which cloud stripes lie-explaining the perspective of clouds, and, to conclude, a most important chapter on the direction of cloud motion.

As well as the diagrams, the book is illustrated by ten exquisite photographs of the various types of clouds taken by the author.

Cloud observations will enable a practised observer to forecast the weather with some accuracy without

"Instructions for Observing Clouds on Land and Sea," with photographs and engravings, by the Hon. Ralph Abercromby, F.R.M.S. E. Stanford, Charing Cross, London, S.W.