the house, and their being secreted among the bedclothes, in shoes, and other articles of dress. It thus became necessary to be constantly on the watch for these troublesome creatures, and to take means for their removal and destruction. Having been informed by the natives of the place that the scorpion would destroy itself if exposed to a sudden light, my informant and her friends soon became adepts in catching the scorpions and disposing of them in the manner suggested. This consisted in confining the animal under an inverted drinking-glass or tumbler, below which a card was inserted when the capture was made, and then, waiting till dark, suddenly bringing the light of a candle near to the glass in which the animal was confined. No sooner was this done than the scorpion invariably showed signs of great excitement, running round and round the interior of the tumbler with reckless velocity for a number of times. This state having lasted for a minute or more, the animal suddenly became quiet, and turning its tail on the hinder part of its body over its back, brought its recurved sting down upon the middle of the head, and piercing it forcibly, in a few seconds became quite motionless, and in fact quite dead. This observation was repeated very frequently; in truth, it was adopted as the best plan of getting rid of the animals. The young people were in the habit of handling the scorpions with impunity immediately after they were so killed, and of preserving many of them as curiosities. In this narrative the following circumstances are worthy of attention : (1) The effect of light in producing the excitement amounting to despair, which causes the animal to commit self-destruction; (2) The suddenness of the operation of the poison, which is probably inserted by the puncture of the head into the upper cerebral ganglion; and (3) The completeness of the fatal symptoms at once induced.. I am aware that the phenomena now described have been observed by others, and they appear to have been familiarly known to the inhabitants of the district in which the animals are found. Sufficient confirmation of the facts is also to be found in the narratives of 'G. Biddie' and 'M. L.' contained in 'Nature,' vol. ix., pp. 29-47, and it will be observed that the circumstances leading the animal to self-destruction in these instances were somewhat similar to those narrated by my informant. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the view taken by Mr. Hutchinson, viz., that the 'popular idea regarding scorpionic suicide is a delusion based on an impossibility,' is wholly untenable; indeed, the recurved direction of the sting, which he refers to as creating the impossibility of the animal destroying itself, actually facilitates the operation of inflicting the wound. I suppose Mr. Hutchinson, arguing from the analogy of bees or wasps, imagined that the sting would be bent forwards upon the body, whereas the wound of the scorpion is invariably inflicted by a recurvation of the tail over the back of the animal. It will be perceived that these observations were not made by Dr. Allen Thomson himself, and that there are certain inherent discrepancies in the account which he has published—such, for instance, as the reason given for trying and repeating the experiment, the method being clearly a cumbersome one to employ if the only object were that of disposing of the animals. Nevertheless, as Dr. Thomson is a high authority, and as I learn from him that he is satisfied regarding the capability and veracity of his informant, I have not felt justified in suppressing his evidence. Still I think that so remarkable a fact unquestionably demands further corroboration before we should be justified in accepting it unreservedly. For if it is a fact, it stands as a unique case of an instinct detrimental alike to the individual and to the species. SIBL CHAPTER VII. REMAINING ARTICULATA. THE Hymenoptera being so much the most intelligent order, not merely of insects, but of Invertebrata, and the Arachnida having been now considered, very little space need be occupied with the remaining classes of the Articulata. Coleoptera. Sir John Lubbock, in his first paper on Bees and Wasps, quotes the following case from Kirby and Spence, with the remarks which I append : The first of these anecdotes refers to a beetle (Ateuchus pilularius) which, having made for the reception of its eggs a pellet of dung too heavy for it to move, repaired to an adjoining heap, and soon returned with three of his companions. 'All four now applied their united strength to the pellet, and at length succeeded in pushing it out; which being done, the three assistant beetles left the spot and returned to their own quarters.' This observation rests on the authority of an anonymous German artist; and though we are assured that he was a 'man of strict veracity,' I am not aware that any similar fact has been recorded by any other observer. Catesby, however, says: I have attentively admired their industry, and their mutual assisting of each other in rolling these globular balls from the place where they made them, to that of their interment, which is usually a distance of some yards, more or less. This they perform back foremost, by raising their hind parts and pushing away the ball with their hind feet. Two or three of them are sometimes engaged in trundling one ball, which from meeting with impediments, on account of the unevenness of the ground, is sometimes deserted by them. It is, however, attempted by others with success, unless it happen to roll into some deep hollow or ditch, where they are accustomed to leave it; but they continue their work by rolling off the next ball that comes in their way. None of them seem to know their own balls, but an equal care for the whole appears to affect all the community. They form these pellets while the dung remains moist, and leave them to harden in the sun before they attempt to roll them. In their rolling of them from place to place, both they and the balls may frequently be seen tumbling about over the little eminences that are in their way. They are not, however, easily discouraged, and by repeating their attempts usually surmount the difficulties.1 Büchner speaks of the fact that dung-beetles co-operate in their work as one that is well established, but gives no authorities or references. A friend of my own, however, informs me that she has witnessed the fact; and in view of analogous observations made on other species of Coleoptera, I see no reason to doubt this one. Some of these observations I may here append. Herr Gollitz writes to Büchner thus:— Last summer, in the month of July, I was one day in my field, and found there a mound of fresh earth like a molehill, on which a striped black and red beetle, with long legs, and about the size of a hornet, was busy taking away the earth from a hole that led like a pit into the mound, and levelling the place. After I had watched this beetle for some time, I noticed a second beetle of the same kind, which brought a little lump of earth from the interior to the opening of the hole, and then disappeared again in the mound; every four or five minutes a pellet came out of the hole, and was carried away by the firstnamed beetle. After I had watched these proceedings for about half an hour, the beetle which had been working underground came out and ran to its comrade. Both put their heads together, and clearly held a conversation, for immediately afterwards they changed work. The one which had been working outside went into the mound, the other took the outside labour, and all went on vigorously. I watched the affair still for a little longer, and went away with the notion that these insects could understand each other just like men. Klingelhöffer, of Darmstadt (in Brehm, loc. cit., ix., p. 86), says :-A golden running beetle came to a cockchafer lying on its back in the garden, intending to eat it, but was unable to master it; it ran to the next bush, and 1 Quoted by Bingley, Animal Biography, vol. iii., p. 118. returned with a friend, whereupon the two overpowered the cockchafer, and pulled it off to their hiding-place. Similarly, there is no doubt that the burying beetles (Nicrophorus) co-operate. Several of them unite together to bury under the ground, as food and shelter for their young, some dead animal, such as a mouse, a toad, a mole, a bird, &c. The burial is performed because the corpse, if left above ground, would either dry up, or grow rotten, or be eaten by other animals. In all these cases the young would perish, whereas the dead body lying in the earth and withdrawn from the outer air lasts very well. The burying beetles go to work in a very well-considered fashion, for they scrape away the earth lying under the body, so that it sinks of itself deeper and deeper. When it is deep enough down, it is covered over from above. If the situation is stony, the beetles with united forces and great efforts drag the corpse to some place more suitable for burying. They work so diligently that a mouse, for instance, is buried within three hours. But they often work on for days, so as to bury the body as deeply as possible. From large carcasses, such as those of horses, sheep, &c., they only bury pieces as large as they can manage.1 Lastly, Clarville gives a case of a burying beetle which wanted to carry away a dead mouse, but, finding it too heavy for its unaided strength, went off, like the beetles previously mentioned, and brought four others to its assistance.2 A friend of Gleditsch fastened a dead toad, which he desired to dry, upon the top of an upright stick. The burying beetles were attracted by the smell, and finding that they could not reach the toad, they undermined the stick, so causing it to fall with the toad, which was then buried safe out of harm's way.3 A converse exemplification of beetle-intelligence is given by G. Berkeley. He saw a beetle carrying a dead spider up a heath plant, and hanging it upon a twig of the heath in so secure a position, that when the insect had left it Mr. Berkeley found that a sharp shake of the heather would not bring the dead spider down. As the burying 1 Büchner, loc. cit., p. 344. 2 Quoted in Strauss, Insects, s. 389. Kirby and Spence, loc. cit., pp. 321-2. |