Part 5

Should one insist and explain that the larvæ require not preserved food which could never have the properties of flesh still palpitating, but prey yet alive, so to say, in spite of complete absence of motion, the learned Congress, after ripe consideration, will fall back upon paralysis: “Yes, of course; the creature has to be paralysed without being killed.” There is but one means of arriving at this result, namely, to injure, cut, and destroy the nervous system of the insect in one or more skilfully chosen points.

If the question be thus left in hands unfamiliar with the secrets of a delicate anatomy it will not have advanced far. What is the arrangement of this nervous system which must be paralysed without killing the insect? First, where is it? In the head no doubt and along the back, like the brain and spinal marrow in the superior animals. “A grave mistake!” our congress would reply; the insect is so to say an animal reversed, which walks on its back—that is, it has the spinal marrow below instead of above, all along breast and stomach; therefore on the lower surface alone can the operation to paralyse the insect be performed.

This difficulty removed, a far graver one presents itself. Armed with his scalpel, the anatomist can direct its point where he will in spite of obstacles which he may have to set aside. The Hymenopteron has no choice. Its victim is a solidly cuirassed beetle, its lancet a dart, extremely delicate, which the horny mail would certainly turn aside. Only certain points are vulnerable to the frail tool, namely, the joints, protected simply by a membrane with no power of resistance. But the joints of the limbs, although vulnerable, do not in the least fulfil the necessary conditions, for through these the utmost that could be obtained is local paralysis, not one affecting the whole organism of motion. Without any prolonged struggle, without repeated operations, which, if too numerous, might endanger the victim’s life, the Hymenopteron has, if possible, to abolish all motive power at one blow. Therefore she must direct her dart at the nervous centres, the source of the power of motion whence radiate the nerves running up to the various organs of movement. Now these sources of locomotion, these nervous centres, consist of a certain number of ganglia, more numerous in the larva, less so in the perfect insect, and arranged on the median line of the under surface in a string of beads more or less distant and connected by a double ribbon of nervous tissue. In all insects which have reached the perfect state the ganglia called thoracic, i.e. those furnishing nerves to wings and feet and governing their movements, are three in number. Here are the points to be struck: if their action can be in any way destroyed, the possibility of movement is destroyed also.

Two ways of reaching these motive centres offer themselves to the feeble dart of the Hymenopteron; one, the joint between neck and corslet; the other the spot where the latter joins the continuation of the thorax, between the first and second pair of feet. The way through the neck does not answer; it is too far from the ganglia, which lie near the base of the feet which they animate. The blow must be dealt at the other spot, and through that only. Thus would an academy decide where Claude Bernards illuminated the question by their profound science. And it is precisely there, between the first and second pairs of feet on the median line of the under surface, that the Cerceris plunges her lancet. By what learned intelligence must she be inspired!

To choose as the spot in which to plant her sting the one vulnerable point, the point which only a physiologist versed in the anatomy of insects could determine beforehand is by no means enough; the Hymenopteron has a far greater difficulty to overcome, and she overcomes it with a mastery which fills one with amazement. We said that the nervous centres controlling the organs of motion in an insect are three. These are more or less distant from each other, but sometimes, though rarely, near together. They possess a certain independence of action, so that an injury to one does not cause, at all events immediately, more than paralysis of members connected with it, while the other ganglia and their corresponding members are not affected by it. To reach these three sources of motion one after the other, the second farther off than the first, and the last farther still, and by a single way, between the first and second pairs of feet, seems impossible for the sting, which is too short, and besides, so difficult to aim well in such conditions. True, certain Coleoptera have the three ganglia of the thorax almost touching, and others have the two last completely united, soldered, smelted together. It is also recognised that in proportion as the different nervous centres combine and centralise, the characteristic functions of animality become more perfect, and also, alas, more vulnerable. Those Coleoptera with centres of motion so near that they touch or even gather into one mass, and so are made part of each other, would be instantly paralysed by one sting; or if several were needed, at all events the ganglia to be paralysed are all collected under the point of the dart.

Now which are the Coleoptera so specially easy to paralyse? That is the question. The lofty science of a Claude Bernard, floating in the fundamental generalities of organisation and life, is no longer enough for us; it is unable to inform and guide us in this entomological selection. I appeal to every physiologist under whose eye these lines may fall. Without having recourse to his book-shelves, could he name the Coleoptera where such a nervous centralisation is found, and even with the help of his library, could he instantly lay his hand on the information wanted? The truth is, we are entering on the minute details of the specialist; the highway is quitted for a path known to few.

I find the necessary documents in the fine work of M. E. Blanchard (Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 3me série, tome v.) on the nervous system of Coleoptera. There I find that this centralisation of nerve power belongs especially to the Scarabæus, but most of these are too large; the Cerceris could neither attack nor carry them away; besides, many live in filth, where the cleanly Hymenopteron could not go to seek them. Motive centres very close together are also found among the Histers, which live on impurity, amid the smell of decay, and again that will not do; also in the Scolytus, which is too small, and finally in Buprestids and Weevils.

What unexpected light amid the pristine obscurities of the problem! Amid the immense number of the Coleoptera which the Cerceris seem able to prey upon, two groups alone, Weevils and Buprestids, fulfil the indispensable conditions. They live far from decay and dung, which perhaps cause invincible repugnance in this dainty Cerceris; they are of most varied size, proportioned to that of their different captors, which may thus choose according to their convenience. They are far more vulnerable than all the others at the one point where the sting of the Hymenopteron can penetrate successfully, for at that point, all easily accessible to the dart, crowd the motor centres of feet and wings. At this point the three thoracic ganglia of Weevils lie very close, the hind two are contiguous. At that same spot in the Buprestids the second and third are welded in one large mass a little distance from the first. And as it is precisely Buprestids and Weevils which are hunted, to the absolute exclusion of all other game, by the eight species of Cerceris, whose food stores of Coleoptera have been ascertained, a certain internal likeness, namely, in centralisation of the nervous system must be the explanation why there are heaped in the dens of various Cerceris victims, outwardly so unlike.

In this choice, upon which even transcendent knowledge could not improve, such an assembly of difficulties is splendidly resolved, that one asks if one be not the dupe of some involuntary illusion, and if preconceived theories have not obscured the reality of facts, in short, whether the pen has not described imaginary marvels. A scientific result is only solidly established when confirmed by experiments repeated in every possible way. Now let us submit to experimental proof the physiological operation taught us by Cerceris tuberculata. If it be possible to obtain artificially what the Hymenopteron obtained by her sting, i.e. abolition of movement, and long preservation of the victim in a state of perfect freshness; if it be possible to bring about this wonder with the Coleoptera hunted by the Cerceris, or with those possessing a like nervous centralisation, while one fails with those whose ganglia are far apart, one must admit, however exacting one may be in the matter of proof, that the Hymenopteron possesses in the unconscious inspirations of instinct the resources of sublime science. Let us see then what experiment shows. The manner of operation is very simple. With a needle, or, better still, with the point of a fine steel pen, we must introduce a tiny drop of some corrosive liquid into the thoracic motive centres, pricking the insect slightly at the jointing of the prothorax behind the first pair of feet. The liquid which I use is ammonia, but it is evident that any other liquid whose action is equally strong would produce the same results. The metal pen being charged with ammonia as it might be with a droplet of ink, I give the prick. The effects thus obtained differ enormously, according to whether the experiment be made upon species with thoracic ganglia near together or upon those where these same ganglia are far apart. With regard to the first category, my experiments were made on Scarabæus, S. sacer and S. longicollis; on a bronze Buprestis; and on weevils, especially that Cleonus hunted by the heroine of these observations. In the second category I have experimented on Caraboidea, Carabus, Procrustes, Chlœnius, Sphodrus, Nebria; Longicornia, Saperda, and Lamia; on Melasomes; Blaps, Scaurus, and Asida.

Among the Scarabæus class, the Buprestids, and the Weevils, the effect is instantaneous. Every movement stops suddenly, without any convulsion, as soon as the fatal drop has touched the nerve centres. The sting of the Cerceris does not produce prompter extinction. Nothing can be more striking than this sudden immobility in a vigorous Scarabæus sacer, but the likeness between the effects produced by the dart of the Cerceris and the steel pen charged with ammonia does not stop here. Scarabæids, Buprestids, and Weevils artificially stung, in spite of their complete immobility, preserve for three weeks, one month, or even two, the perfect flexibility of every joint and the normal freshness of the interior organs. With them defecation takes place on the first days as in the normal condition, and movement can be excited by the Voltaic current. In a word, they behave exactly as do Coleoptera sacrificed by the Cerceris. There is complete identity between the state into which she plunges her victims and that produced at will by injecting ammonia into the nerve centres of the thorax. Now, as it is impossible to attribute the perfect preservation of the insect during so long a time to the drop injected, one must altogether reject the notion of an antiseptic fluid, and grant that in spite of utter immobility the creature is not really dead. A spark of life exists, keeping the organs for some time in normal freshness, but dying out by degrees and leaving them at last subject to corruption. Moreover, the ammonia in some cases produces extinction of movement in the feet only, and then the deleterious action of the fluid having doubtless not extended far enough, the antennæ preserve some mobility, and one sees that the creature, even a month after inoculation, draws them back quickly at the least touch—an evident proof that life has not completely abandoned the inert body. This movement is not rare with Weevils wounded by the Cerceris.

Injection of ammonia always stops motion at once in Buprestids, Weevils, and Scarabæus, but it is not always possible to put the creature into the state just described. If the wound be too deep, or the little drop instilled be too strong, at the end of two or three days the victim really dies, and after two or three days there is but a decaying body. If, on the contrary, the prick be too slight, it recovers the power of motion, at least partially, after being inanimate for more or less time. The Cerceris herself may operate clumsily, just like man, for I have seen this kind of resurrection in a victim struck by the dart of a Hymenopteron. Sphex flavipennis, whose history will presently occupy us, heaps in her dens young crickets struck by her venomed lancet. From one of her holes I have taken three poor crickets whose extreme flabbiness would, in any other circumstances, have denoted death. But here, again, death was only apparent. Placed in a bottle, these crickets kept quite fresh but motionless for nearly three weeks, after which two grew mouldy, while the third came partly to life—that is to say, it regained motion of the antennæ, mouth-parts, and, which is more remarkable, of the first two pairs of feet. If even the skill of the Hymenopteron sometimes fails to benumb a victim for good and all, can one expect constant success with the rough experiments of man?

In Coleoptera of the second category—those where the ganglia of the thorax are distant one from another—the effect of ammonia is quite different. Those which show themselves least vulnerable are the Caraboidea. A puncture which would instantly have annihilated motion in the large Scarabæus sacer, in the middle size Caraboidea only causes violent, disordered convulsions. By degrees the creature quiets down, and after some hours’ rest resumes its habitual movements as if nothing had happened to it. If the experiment be repeated on it twice, thrice, even four times, the results are the same, until the wound becomes too serious, and it dies outright, as is proved by the drying up and putrefaction which soon follow.

The Melasomes and the Longicorns are more sensitive to the action of ammonia. The injection of a small corrosive drop quickly renders them motionless, and after some twitching they seem dead. But the paralysis which would have persisted in Weevils, Scarabids, and Buprestids is but momentary. Before long motion reappears as energetic as before. It is only when the dose of ammonia is of a certain strength that movement does not reappear. But then the creature is really dead, and putrefaction rapidly comes on. It is then impossible to cause complete and persistent paralysis in Coleoptera with ganglia far apart by the means so efficacious in those with ganglia near together. At the utmost one can only obtain momentary paralysis, which passes quickly away. The demonstration is decisive. Cerceris which prey on Coleoptera conform in their choice to what the most learned physiology and finest anatomy alone can teach. It would be vain to endeavour to see nothing here but chance agreement; it is not chance which explains such harmony.

THE YELLOW-WINGED SPHEX

In their impenetrable coat of mail the Coleoptera offer but one vulnerable point to their dart-bearing foe. This defect in the cuirass is known to the assassin, and the poisoned sting is there inserted, striking at one blow the three centres of motion, the Weevil and Buprestid, which alone have a nervous organisation sufficiently centralised, being selected. But what happens when the insect wears no armour and is soft-skinned, so that the Hymenopteron can pierce it anywhere that the chances of the struggle may direct? Is there then a choice as to where the blow is given? Like the assassin who strikes at the heart to shorten the dangerous struggles of his victim, does the Sphex follow the tactics of the Cerceris, and strike by preference at the motor ganglia? If so, what happens when these are distant from one another, acting so independently that paralysis of one does not affect the others? These questions will be answered by the history of an insect which hunts field crickets, Sphex flavipennis.

It is towards the end of July that this Sphex tears open the cocoon which until then has protected it, and flies away from its subterranean cradle. During the whole of August one constantly sees it seeking drops of honey on the spiny heads of Eryngium campestre, the commonest of such robust plants as brave the dog days. But this careless life is brief, for in the earliest days of September the Sphex has begun the hard existence of miner and hunter. It is usually on some small flat spot on banks along a road that the dwelling is established, only there must be two indispensable conditions—a sandy soil easy to work, and sun. Beyond this no precaution is taken to shelter the domicile against autumn rain and winter frost. A horizontal position, unsheltered, beaten by rain and wind, suit the Sphex perfectly, so long as it is exposed to the sun. But when the work is half-way through, if heavy rain should come, it is sad to see next day galleries in course of construction choked with sand and finally abandoned.

Rarely does the Sphex work in solitude; it is in small bands of ten, twenty, or more excavators that the claim selected is worked. One must have spent some days watching one of these colonies in order to form any idea of the restless activity, the feverish haste, the abrupt movements, of these hard-working miners. They rapidly attack the ground with the rakes of their forefeet, canis instar, as Linnæus says. A puppy does not show more energy in scratching up the ground in play. At the same time each labourer hums a joyous song—shrill, high-pitched, interrupted at short intervals, and modulated by vibrations of wings and thorax. One would think they were a troop of merry comrades, stimulating one another to work by a cadenced rhythm. Meanwhile, the sand flies, falling in fine dust on their quivering wings, and the heavier gravel, pulled out bit by bit, rolls far away. If a bit resist too much, the insect goes at it with a high note, reminding one of the cry with which a woodcutter accompanies the stroke of his axe. Under the redoubled efforts of tarsi and mandibles the cavity is already sketched out, and the Sphex can already dart into it. Then comes a lively interchange of forward movements to detach material, and of backward to brush out fragments. In this hurried coming and going the Sphex does not so much walk as dart forward, as though impelled by a spring. With panting abdomen, antennæ vibrating, the whole body moved by a strong thrill, she springs forward and is out of sight. You still hear the unwearied hum underground, and one sees from time to time hind legs pushing backward a wave of sand to the mouth of the burrow. From time to time labour underground is interrupted either that the Sphex may dust herself in the sunlight, and get rid of grains of dust which insinuate themselves into delicate joints and hamper the liberty of her movements, or that she make a reconnaissance in the neighbourhood. Notwithstanding these short interruptions, in a few hours the gallery is hollowed out and the Sphex appears on her threshold, to voice her triumph, and give the last touch to her labours by effacing some inequality, or carrying away some particles of earth, the objection to which only the eye of a Sphex could perceive.

Of the many tribes of Sphegidæ visited by me, there is one of which I retain a specially lively recollection, on account of its singular installation upon the edge of a high road, where were little heaps of mud thrown up from side ditches by the cantonnier’s shovel. One, well sun-dried, had a conical shape like a sugar-loaf over fifteen inches high. The situation pleased the Sphegidæ, who had established a more populous community than I have ever again met with. From base to summit the cone of dried mud was pierced with burrows, giving it the appearance of a huge sponge. In every story was feverish animation, and a busy coming and going which brought to mind the scene in some great workshop when orders are pressing. Crickets were being dragged by the antennæ up the slopes of the conical city; there was storing of provisions in the larders of the cells; dust was pouring from galleries in process of construction; at intervals the grimy faces of the miners appeared at mouths of passages—there was a constant going and coming. Now and then, in a short interval of leisure, a Sphex ascended the top of the cone, perhaps to take a general and well-satisfied view from this belvedere. What a tempting sight!—one to make me long to carry away the entire city with its inhabitants. It was useless to try; the mass was too heavy. One cannot take up a village by the roots to plant it elsewhere.

Let us look at the Sphex at work in flat ground, as is much more frequently the case. As soon as the burrow is hollowed out, the chase begins. Let us profit by the absence of the Hymenopteron in search of game, and take a look at her dwelling. The spot chosen by a Sphex colony is generally horizontal, though the ground is not so level but that there are little mounds crowned by a tuft of grass or thrift, or inequalities consolidated by the slender roots of the vegetation which covers them. It is on the sides of such furrows that the Sphex places her den. For two or three inches in depth the gallery is horizontal, serving as an approach to the hidden shelter for the provender and the larvæ. In this vestibule the Sphex takes refuge in bad weather, rests there at night, and occasionally by day for a few instants, showing only her expressive face and impudent eyes. Beyond the vestibule an abrupt turn descends more or less obliquely to a depth of two or three inches more, ending in an oval cell rather larger in diameter, whose axis lies parallel with the horizontal gallery. The cell walls are not covered with any particular cement, but in spite of their bareness they have evidently been the object of most careful labour. The sand is heaped and levelled on the floor, on the ceiling, and sides, so as to do away with the risk of landslips, or any roughness which might injure the delicate skin of the larva. This cell communicates with the passage by a narrow entrance, just wide enough to allow the Sphex, burdened with prey, to enter. When this first cell is furnished with an egg and necessary provisions, the Sphex walls up the entrance, but does not yet abandon her burrow. A second cell is hollowed beside the first, and provisioned in the same manner; there is then a third made, and sometimes a fourth. Only then does the Sphex cast back into the burrow the rubbish heaped at the entrance, completely effacing all outward trace of her work. Three cells are usually found in each burrow, rarely two, and yet more rarely four. As one learns by dissecting the insect, one may estimate the number of eggs laid at about thirty, which would make the number of burrows needed ten. Now these are hardly begun before September, and are finished before the end of the month. Consequently the Sphex cannot devote more than two or three days at most to each burrow and its stores. Evidently the active little creature has not a minute to lose, when in so short a time she has to hollow out the lair, procure a dozen crickets, sometimes brought from a distance through endless difficulties, to store them, and finally to stop up the burrow. Moreover, there are days when wind makes hunting impossible; rainy days or overcast ones suspending all work. The Sphex cannot give to her building the enduring solidity that Cerceris tuberculata gives to its deep galleries. This species transmit their solid abodes from one generation to another, each year hollowed more deeply, so that I was often bathed in perspiration when I tried to reach them, and frequently my efforts and my implements proved useless. The Sphex inherits nothing, and must herself do everything, and that rapidly. Her dwelling is but a tent, hastily erected and moved on the morrow. In compensation the larvæ, covered but by a thin layer of sand, know how to supply the shelter which their mother has not given them; they can clothe themselves with a double and triple waterproof covering, far superior to the thin cocoon of the Cerceris.

But here comes a Sphex with noisy hum, returning from the chase. She pauses on a neighbouring bush, holding in her mandibles one of the antennæ of a big cricket, weighing far more than herself. Tired out by the weight, she rests a moment, then grasps her captive between her feet, and with a supreme effort flies right across the ravine between her and her abode. She alights heavily on the flat ground where I am watching, in the very middle of a Sphex village. The rest of the journey is made on foot, the Sphex, not in the least intimidated by my presence, comes astride her victim, holding her head proudly aloft while she drags along the cricket between her feet by one of its antennæ held in her jaws. If the soil be bare there is no difficulty, but should a network of grass spread its runners across the way, it is curious to see the astonishment of the Sphex at finding her efforts baffled by this little obstacle—curious to witness her marches and countermarches and repeated attempts until the difficulty is surmounted either by the aid of her wings or a well-planned détour. The cricket is at last conveyed to its destination and placed so that its antennæ come exactly to the mouth of the burrow. Then the Sphex abandons it and descends in haste to the bottom of the cave. A few seconds later she puts her head out with a little cry of joy. The antennæ of the cricket are within reach; she seizes them and promptly conveys it down to her den.

I still ask myself in vain why these complicated manœuvres at the moment of conveying the cricket into the burrow. Why, instead of going down alone and returning to resume the prey left on the threshold, does not the Sphex drag it into the gallery, as she did in the open air, since the space is wide enough, or take it with her while she enters backwards? The various predatory Hymenoptera which I have been able to observe all drag their prey at once to the bottom of their cells, holding it underneath them by their mandibles and intermediary feet. Léon Dufour’s Cerceris does indeed somewhat complicate her movements, since after putting down her Buprestis for a moment at the door of her underground abode, she instantly goes backward into the gallery, seizes her victim with her mandibles and drags it down; but that is very unlike the tactics adopted in a like case by the Sphex. Why this domiciliary visit, which invariably precedes the introduction of the prey? May it not be that before descending hampered by a load, the Sphex thinks it prudent to give a look round the bottom of her dwelling to make sure that all is in order and to drive out, if necessary, some impertinent parasite which may have slipped in during her absence? Several Diptera, predatory flies, especially Tachinidæ, watch at the doors of all the hunting Hymenoptera, spying out the favourable moment to lay their eggs on other people’s game, but none penetrate into the dwelling, nor venture into the dark passages, where, if by ill-luck the owner caught them, they might have to pay dearly for their audacity. The Sphex, like others, pays her tribute to the predatory Tachinidæ, but they never enter her burrow to commit their misdeeds. Besides, have they not all the time they need to lay their eggs on the cricket? If they look sharp, they may very well profit by the Sphex’s momentary absence from her victim to confide their posterity to it. What yet greater danger menaces the Sphex which renders this preliminary descent to the bottom of the burrow such an imperious necessity?

The one observed fact which can throw any light on the problem is this. Amid a colony of Sphegidæ in full activity, whence all other Hymenoptera are habitually excluded, I one day surprised a sportsman of a different kind, Tachytes nigra, carrying one by one, without any haste and with the greatest composure, amid the crowd where he was but an intruder, grains of sand, little bits of dry stalk, and other small materials, to stop up a burrow of the same shape and size as the neighbouring ones of the Sphegidæ. This labour was pursued too conscientiously to admit of any doubt as to the presence of the worker’s egg in the underground dwelling. A Sphex with anxious movements, apparently the legitimate owner of the burrow, never failed each time that the Tachytes entered the gallery to dart in pursuit, but emerged swiftly, as if frightened, followed by the other, who continued her task unmoved. I visited this burrow, the evident cause of strife between them, and found a cell provisioned with four crickets. Suspicion almost gave place to certainty, for this allowance far exceeded the needs of a Tachytes’ larva, which is at least one-half smaller than the Sphex. The calm insect whose care to stop up the burrow at first suggested that it was the owner was really a usurper. How comes it that the Sphex, larger and more robust than her adversary, allows herself to be robbed with impunity, limiting herself to a fruitless pursuit, and flying like a coward when the intruder, who seems not even to perceive her, turns round to come out of the burrow? Is it with insects as with men, the first quality needed for success is audacity—audacity—audacity? Certainly the usurper had no lack of it. I can still see that Tachytes, imperturbably calm, going and coming before the meek Sphex, which stamped with impatience, but did not venture to fall upon the thief.

Let us add that in other circumstances I have repeatedly found this Hymenopteron, I suppose to be a parasite—this Tachytes nigra, dragging a cricket by one of its antennæ. Was it a prey lawfully acquired? I would fain think so, but the indecision of the insect which strayed about the ruts in the paths as if seeking a convenient burrow always left me suspicious. I have never been present when it burrowed, if indeed it ever does undertake that labour, and what is more, I have seen it abandon its game to decay, perhaps not knowing what to do with it for want of a hole where to put it. Such wastefulness seems to indicate goods ill-gotten, and I ask myself if the cricket were not stolen when the Sphex left it on her threshold? I also suspect Tachytes obsoleta, banded with white round the abdomen like Sphex albisecta, which nourishes its larvæ with crickets such as are hunted by the latter. I have never seen it digging galleries, but I have caught it dragging crickets that the Sphex would not have disdained. This similarity of food in species of different genera makes me doubtful whether the booty were lawfully come by. Let me add, however, to atone in some measure for the injury which my suspicions may do to the character of the genus, that I have seen the perfectly lawful capture of a little cricket yet wingless by Tachytes tarsina, and have also seen it hollow cells and store them with prey bravely acquired. Thus I have only suspicions to offer as to why the Sphex persists in descending to the bottom of her hole before carrying in prey. Is there some other end besides that of dislodging a parasite which may have got in during the owner’s absence? I despair of finding out; who can interpret the thousand manœuvres of instinct? Poor human reason which cannot even explain the wisdom of a Sphex!

At all events, it is proved that these manœuvres are singularly invariable, àpropos of which I will mention an experiment which greatly interested me. At the moment when the Sphex makes her domiciliary visit, I take the cricket and put it some way off. The Sphex comes up, utters her usual cry, looks round with astonishment, and seeing the game too far off, comes out to seize and put it in the right position. Then she goes down again without the cricket. Same manœuvre on my part, same disappointment when she reappears. Again the prey is brought to the mouth of the hole, and again the Sphex goes down alone, and so on as long as my patience holds out. Forty times on end have I tried the experiment on the same individual; her persistence vanquished mine, and her tactics never varied.

Having proved the inflexible pertinacity of all the Sphegidæ in one colony on whom I cared to experiment, I could not but perplex myself over it. “Does then the insect obey a fixed tendency which circumstances cannot modify?” I asked myself. “Are its actions all done by rule, and is it unable to acquire the least experience from its own proceedings?” Later observations modified this too absolute judgment.

The following year, at the proper time, I visited the same spot. The new generation had inherited for their burrows the place chosen by the preceding ones; it had also faithfully inherited their tactics, for the cricket experiment gave the same results. Such as were the Sphegidæ of the past year such are those of the present one, equally persistent in a fruitless attempt. My error grew confirmed until good luck brought me to another colony in a different place. I renewed my experiments. After two or three trials with the old, well-known result, the Sphex got astride of the cricket, seized its antennæ with her mandibles, and dragged it at once into the burrow. Who looked a fool then? The experimenter baffled by the clever Hymenopteron. At the other holes her neighbours, some sooner, some later, found me out, and went down with their prey instead of persisting in leaving it on the threshold to seize it later. What is the meaning of this? This colony, descended from another stock, for sons return to the spot selected by their forefathers, is cleverer than the one observed last year. Craft is inherited; there are sharper-witted tribes and duller ones, apparently according to the faculties of their forefathers. With Sphegidæ, as with us, the kind of intellect changes with the province. Next day I tried the cricket experiment in another locality, and it invariably succeeded. I had come upon a dense-minded tribe, a true colony of Bœotians, as in my earlier observations.

VII

THREE STROKES OF A DAGGER