Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 3 (1899).djvu/493

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
MIMICRY.
463

Purposeless Mimicry.

Some orchids have a curious resemblance to insects, after which they have accordingly been named the Bee-orchis, Fly-orchis, Butterfly-orchis, &c, but it has not yet been satisfactorily shown what advantage the resemblance is to the plant.[1] The fungi, known by the name of club-tops, much-branched, flesh-coloured, yellow or white Clavariæ, which often adorn whole tracts of ground in a wood, imitate the structure of corals; Hydneæ are like Sea-urchins, and Geaster like a Starfish, whilst the various species of Tremella, Exidia, and Guepinia, which are flesh-pink, orange, or brownish in colour, and the white translucent Tremellodon gelatinosum, resemble gelatinous Sponges. The small stiff Toadstools (Marasmius) which raise their slender stalks on fallen pine-needles, remind one of the rigid Acetabulariæ. Other Toadstools, with flat or convex caps exhibiting concentric bands and stripes, such as the different species of Craterellus, have an appearance similar to the salt-water alga known by the name of Padina. Dark species of Geoglossum imitate the brown Fucoideæ; and one may fancy the red warts of Lycogala epidendron, a plasmoid fungus inhabiting the rotten wood of dead weather-beaten trees, to be red Sea-anemones with their tentacles drawn in, clinging to grey rocks. However far-

  1. Sir John Lubbock. 'The Beauties of Nature,' p. 156.—On this point it may be mentioned that Father Kircher, in his Mundus Subterraneus, published in Amsterdam in 1678, "depicted the genesis of birds, apes, and men by means of the transformation of some orchids. He had been struck with the resemblance of these strange flowers to many animals, and therefore concluded that the latter were derived from the former." (Cf. Varigny, 'Experimental Evolution,' p. 14.)—Per contra, examples abound of men, who, undoubtedly authorities on their own subject, needlessly give themselves away by ludicrous comments on matters of which they are absolutely ignorant. An amusing instance of this may be found in W. Day's well-known book 'The Racehorse in Training.' The author of this book, thoroughly versed in his own business, having passed through the stages of an accomplished jockey, a successful trainer, and an astute owner, in discussing the evils of "sweating" horses, which he ascribes to "theory," points the moral of his tale by alluding to other theories, not excluding that of Mr. Darwin. We are treated to the following effusion:—"We have Mr. Darwin's theory, arising out of Lord Monboddo's idea. His lordship said over a century ago, 'that in some countries the human species have tails like other beasts, and traces Monkeys up to men.'" ('The Racehorse in Training,' 5th edit. p. 90.)