without the pistil being fertilized by pollen scattered on it from the anthers. Now what follows from this? We have first a short-styled variety, the anthers reaching some height above the stigma; it is easy enough to imagine how the pollen may drop from these anthers on the stigma and so fertilize it. But what about the long-styled pin centre, where the stigma stands above the pollen bearing organs, and so does not stand any chance of being thus fertilized? Now the first thought that struck Mr. Darwin was this, that the primrose was gradually becoming diœcious, i.e. that by and by the stamens would die out in the long-styled specimens, and the plant would bear only a pistil; and that in the short-styled specimens the pistil was dying out and the stamens were developing themselves. It is the case in many plants that some flowers bear pistils only and others stamens only-they are called diacious or housed." Thus in time we should get two sorts of primroses much more distinct than they are at present. Again, the thought may strike you at once, that if the pollen cannot reach the stigma on the long-styled specimens there can be no fertilization, and therefore no seed, and consequently the pin centres must in time die out. Now we must ask some botanical friend whether he knows for a certainty that the pin centres ever produce seed. He says "Yes, quite as often as the others." Therefore they do get fertilized. This sets us thinking again-how? Mr. Darwin says it is done by the Humble Bee. Many of you will recollect how by the agency of this and other insects orchids are fertilized. The bee inserting its head into the corolla of a flower detaches "" two some of the pollen, and upon entering another is pretty certain to leave some of it behind. It is now a well-known fact that this process, which is called cross-fertilization, is the rule and not the exception; the exceptions lie on the other side, the case of a flower fertilizing itself by its own pollen, being rare even in flowers like the short-styled primroses. And when such self-fertilization takes place the seed deteriorates. But then you will say in a case like this-the shortstyled Primrose-how is it possible to prevent selffertilization? Now we make use of another or two of Mr. Darwin's discoveries in the physiology of plants. He discovered that when a stigma is covered with two or three kinds of pollen,-species or varieties, one only takes effect to the exclusion of all others; also that the pollen from a long-styled Primrose is more powerful on the stigma of a short-styled specimen than its own, and vice versa: hence if the stigma in a rose centre gets sprinkled with pollen, both from its own anthers and from those of a pin centre, the latter will be most probably the effectual agent; and if the stigma in a pin centre receives pollen by any means from its own anthers (which is unlikely) and from a rose centre, the latter only will take effect. Hence a cross fertilization goes on, and this you see by the agency of insects. It may not have struck you, could not in fact, unless some of these facts were known to you, that insects and flowers are mutually necessary to each other, and neither could exist without the other. I remember being much struck with this remark when I heard it from the lips of Mr. Bates, the traveller of the Amazons, during a short walk on the Warren. "If insects perish" he said "flowers must necessarily perish too." The flower yields its nectar to the insect, and the insect in return assists in perpetuating the flower. Such are a few of the mysteries enveloped in a Primrose blossom. As my remarks have already reached a greater length than I intended, I must say nothing about the Cowslip, though I should like, if I am not tiring you, to say a few words about the Oxlip. I may astonish you, but I do not think I shall make a rash assertion, if I say that, in all probability, none here present have seen the true Oxlip. It grows in Cambridgeshire and perhaps one or two other localities. What we call the Oxlip is, as you know, a set of several flowers like Primroses growing on one stem like Cowslip flowers. I remarked a few minutes ago that the stem of the Primrose was arrested in its growth, that if you cut through the root just below the ground you would see that the pedicels all sprang from one circle, and that if we could only imagine the stem elevated, carrying this circle with it, we should have our Oxlip. It has been generally set down as a hybrid between a Cowslip and a Primrose, but I am quite of the opinion of my friend, Mr. Britten (to whom I am in fact indebted for some of the thoughts I have placed before you), that it is but a developed Primrose. I have found both single flowered and many flowered stems growing on the same root. It is a question, however, by no means settled, whether there is not in addition a true intermediate form between a Cowslip and a Primrose. There is plenty of work before us all in the matter if we like to commence the work of observation. I chose the subject because I thought it might give us all an object to work for at once, as the Primroses are now coming out. I give you a hint or two about it. Set notes down in your vademecum (I suppose no member of a Natural History Society goes out without a note-book) to work out answers to the following questions :— 1. Are these oxlips most plentiful among primroses or among cowslips? 2. Do those which occur among primroses bear a closer resemblance to primroses than to cowslips ? 3. Do those among cowslips resemble those flowers most? 4. Have you ever found primroses and oxlips on the same root? 5. Have you ever found cowslips and oxlips on the same root? In all probability the Primrose, Cowslip, and Oxlip have been developed from one common form, according to surrounding circumstances. VII.-THE PUSS MOTH-A LIFE HISTORY. Dicranura vinula. :0: Read before the Folkestone Natural History Society, December, 15th, 1874. :0: There are Entomologists and Entomologists-two distinct classes, better known perhaps as students and collectors, and wide is the difference between them. There are those who take a delight (as every true naturalist must do) in making the lives of GOD'S creatures a perpetual study as well as a source of endless recreation, and I may even say amusement; who prefer to watch animals in their native haunts and there to trace out their habits, and their wonderful adaptation to their physical surroundings; or who take advantage of the dominion given to man over the earth and all that is in it, to capture and study in captivity those points which probably never could be studied in the creature's wild state. Many of this class make no collections at all, but they are in themselves perfect encyclopædias of all that relates to insect life. There are others again whose sole aim is to hunt, capture, and kill; who glory in nothing so much as the possession of a species which their near neighbour and friend does not possess -whose greatest boast is that they have a unique specimen. The habits of their so-called pets are utterly unknown to them, and they will spend a small fortune in purchasing specimens which they |