<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0003" id="link2HCH0003"></SPAN></p>
<br/>
<h2> CHAPTER III. ANOTHER PROBER (PERFORATOR) </h2>
<p>What can he be called, this creature whose style and title I dare not
inscribe at the head of the chapter? His name is Monodontomerus cupreus,
SM. Just try it, for fun: Mo-no-don-to-me-rus. What a gorgeous mouthful!
What an idea it gives one of some beast of the Apocalypse! We think, when
we pronounce the word, of the prehistoric monsters: the mastodon, the
mammoth, the ponderous megatherium. Well, we are misled by the scientific
label: we have to do with a very paltry insect, smaller than the common
gnat.</p>
<p>There are good people like that, only too happy to serve science with
resounding appellations that might come from Timbuktu; they cannot name
you a midge without striking terror into you. O ye wise and revered ones,
ye christeners of animals, I am willing, in my study, to make use—but
not undue use—of your harsh terminology, with its conglomeration of
syllables; but there is a danger of their leaving the sanctum and
appearing before the public, which is always ready to show its lack of
deference for terms that do not respect its ears. I, wishing to speak like
everybody else, so that I may be understood by all, and persuaded that
science has no need of this Brobdignagian jargon, make a point of avoiding
technical nomenclature when it becomes too barbarous, when it threatens to
lumber the page the moment my pen attempts it. And so I abandon
Monodontomerus.</p>
<p>It is a puny little insect, almost as tiny as the midges whom we see
eddying in a ray of sunshine at the end of autumn. Its dress is golden
bronze; its eyes are coral red. It carries a naked sword, that is to say,
the sheath of its drill stands out slantwise at the tip of its belly,
instead of lying in a hollow groove along the back, as it does with the
Leucospis. This scabbard holds the latter half of the inoculating
filament, which extends below the animal to the base of the abdomen. In
short, its utensil is that of the Leucospis, with this difference, that
its lower half sticks out like a rapier.</p>
<p>This mite that bears a sword upon her rump is yet another persecutor of
the mason bees and not one of the least formidable. She exploits their
nests at the same time as the Leucospis. I see her, like the Leucospis,
slowly explore the ground with her antennae; I see her, like the
Leucospis, bravely drive her dagger into the stone wall. More taken up
with her work, less conscious perhaps of danger, she pays no heed to the
man who is observing her so closely. Where the Leucospis flies, she does
not budge. So great is her assurance that she comes right into my study,
to my work table, and disputes my ownership of the nests whose occupants I
am examining. She operates under my lens, she operates just beside my
forceps. What risk does she run? What can one do to a thing so very small?
She is so certain of her safety that I can take the Mason's nest in my
hand, move it, put it down and take it up again without the insect's
raising any objection: it continues its work even when my magnifying glass
is placed over it.</p>
<p>One of these heroines has come to inspect a nest of the Chalicodoma of the
Walls, most of whose cells are occupied by the numerous cocoons of a
parasite, the Stelis. The contents of these cells, which have been
partially ripped up to satisfy my curiosity, are very much exposed to
view. The windfall appears to be appreciated, for I see the dwarf ferret
about from cell to cell for four days on end, see her choose her cocoon
and insert her awl in the most approved fashion. I thus learn that sight,
although an indispensable guide in searching, does not decide upon the
proper spot for the operation. Here is an insect exploring not the stony
exterior of the mason's dwelling, but the surface of cocoons woven of
silk. The explorer has never found herself placed in such circumstances,
nor has any of her race before her, every cocoon, under normal conditions,
being protected by a surrounding wall. No matter: despite the profound
difference in the surfaces, the insect does not waver. Warned by a special
sense, an undecipherable riddle to ourselves, it knows that the object of
its search lies hidden under this unfamiliar casing. The sense of smell
has already been shown to be out of the question; that of sight is now
eliminated in its turn.</p>
<p>That she should bore through the cocoons of the Stelis, a parasite of the
mason bee, does not surprise me at all: I know how indifferent my bold
visitor is to the nature of the victuals destined for her family. I have
noticed her presence in the homes of bees differing greatly in size and
habits: Anthophorae, Osmiae, Chalicodomae, Anthidia. The Stelis exploited
on my table is one victim more; and that is all. The interest does not lie
there. The interest lies in the maneuvers of the insect, which I am able
to follow under the most favorable conditions.</p>
<p>Bent sharply at right angles, like a couple of broken matches, the
antennae feel the cocoon with their tips alone. The terminal joint is the
home of this strange sense which discerns from afar what no eye sees, no
scent distinguishes and no ear hears. If the point explored be found
suitable, the insect hoists itself on tiptoe so as to give full scope to
the play of its mechanism; it brings the tip of the belly a little
forward; and the entire ovipositor—inoculating-needle and scabbard—stands
perpendicular to the cocoon, in the center of the quadrilateral described
by the four hind legs, an eminently favorable position for obtaining the
maximum effect. For some time, the whole of the awl bears on the cocoon,
feeling all round with its point, groping about; then, suddenly, the
boring needle is released from its sheath, which falls back along the
body, while the needle strives to make its entrance. The operation is a
difficult one. I see the insect make a score of attempts, one after the
other, without succeeding in piercing the tough wrapper of the Stelis.
Should the instrument not penetrate, it retreats into its sheath and the
insect resumes its scrutiny of the cocoon, sounding it point by point with
the tips of its antennae. Then further thrusts are tried until one
succeeds.</p>
<p>The eggs are little spindles, white and gleaming like ivory, about
two-thirds of a millimeter in length. They have not the long, curved
peduncle of the Leucospis' eggs; they are not suspended from the ceiling
of the cocoon like these, but are laid without order around the fostering
larva. Lastly, in a single cell and with a single mother, there is always
more than one laying; and the number of eggs varies considerably in each.
The Leucospis, because of her great size, which rivals that of her victim,
the Bee, finds in each cell provisions enough for one and one alone. When,
therefore, there is more than one set of eggs in any one cell, this is due
to a mistake on her part and not a premeditated result. Where the whole
ration is required for the meals of a single grub, she would take good
care not to install several if she could help it. Her competitor is not
called upon to observe the same discretion. A Chalicodoma grub gives the
dwarf the wherewithal to portion a score of her little ones, who will live
in common and in all comfort on what a single son of the giantess would
eat up by himself. The tiny boring engineer, therefore, always settles a
numerous family at the same banquet. The bowl, ample for a dozen or two,
is emptied in perfect harmony.</p>
<p>Curiosity made me count the brood, to see if the mother was able to
estimate the victuals and to proportion the number of guests to the
sumptuousness of the fare provided. My notes mention fifty-four larvae in
the cell of a masked Anthophora (Anthophora personata). No other census
attained this figure. Possibly, two different mothers had laid their eggs
in this crowded habitation. With the Mason bee of the Walls, I see the
number of larvae vary, in different cells, between four and twenty-six;
with the mason bee of the Sheds, between five and thirty-six; with the
three-horned Osmia, who supplied me with the largest number of records,
between seven and twenty-five; with the blue Osmia (Osmia cyanea, KIRB.),
between five and six; with the Stelis (Stelis nasuta), between four and
twelve.</p>
<p>The first return and the last two seem to point to some relation between
the abundance of provisions and the number of consumers. When the mother
comes upon the bountiful larva of the masked Anthophora, she gives it
half-a-hundred to feed; with the Stelis and the blue Osmia, niggardly
rations both, she contents herself with half-a-dozen. To introduce into
the dining room only the number of boarders that the bill of fare will
allow would certainly be a most deserving performance, especially as the
insect is placed under very difficult conditions to judge the contents of
the cell. These contents, which lie hidden under the ceiling, are
invisible; and the insect can derive its information only from the outside
of the nest, which varies in the different species. We should therefore
have to admit the existence of a particular power of discrimination, a
sort of discernment of the species, which is recognized as large or small
from the outward aspect of its house. I refuse to go to this length in my
conjectures, not that instinct seems to me incapable of such feats, but
because of the particulars obtained from the three-horned Osmia and the
two mason bees.</p>
<p>In the cells of these three species, I see the number of larvae put out to
nurse vary in so elastic a fashion that I must abandon all idea of
proportionate adjustment. The mother, without troubling unduly whether
there be an excess or a dearth of provisions for her family, has filled
the cells as her fancy prompted, or rather according to the number of ripe
ovules contained in her ovaries at the time of the laying. If food be
over-plentiful, the brood will be all the better for it and will grow
bigger and stronger; if food be scarce, the famished youngsters will not
die, but will remain smaller. Indeed, with both the larva and the full
grown insect, I have often observed a difference in size which varies
according to the density of the population, the members of a small colony
being double the size of their overcrowded neighbors.</p>
<p>The grubs are white, tapering at both ends, sharply segmented and covered
all over their bodies with a coat of fine, soft hairs which is invisible
except under the lens. The head consists of a little knob much smaller in
diameter than the body. In this head, the microscope reveals mandibles
consisting of fine spikes of a tawny red, which spread into a wide,
colorless base. Deprived of any indentation, incapable of chewing anything
between their awl-shaped ends, these two tools serve at best to fix the
grub slightly at some point of the fostering larva. Useless for carving,
therefore, the mouth is a pure osculatory sucker, which drains the
provisions by a process of exudation through the skin. We see here
repeated what the Anthrax and the Leucospis have already shown us: the
gradual exhaustion of a victim which the parasite consumes without killing
it.</p>
<p>It is a curious spectacle even after that of the Anthrax. We have here
twenty or thirty starvelings, all with their mouths pressed, as for a
kiss, to the body of the plump larva, which, from day to day, fades and
shrinks without the least appreciable wound, thus keeping fresh until
reduced to a shriveled slough. If I disturb the gluttonous swarm, all,
with a sudden recoil, let go, drop off and flounder around the foster
mother. They are no less prompt in resuming their savage kisses. I need
not add that neither at the point where they leave off nor at the point
where they recommence is there the faintest trace of liquid. The oily
exudation occurs only when the pump is at work. To linger over this
strange method of feeding is superfluous after what I have said about the
Anthrax.</p>
<p>The appearance of the full grown insect takes place at the beginning of
summer, after nearly a whole year's stay in the invaded dwelling. The
large number of inhabitants of one and the same cell led me to think that
the work of deliverance ought to present a certain interest. They are all
equally anxious to clear the walls of the prison at the earliest possible
moment and to come forth into the great festival of the sun: do they all
at the same time, in a confused horde, attack the ceiling which has to be
pierced? Is the work of deliverance arranged in the general interest? Or
is individual selfishness the only rule? These are the questions which
observation will answer.</p>
<p>A little in advance of the proper season, I transfer each family into a
short glass tube, which will represent the natal cell. A good, thick cork,
quite a centimeter deep, is the obstacle to be pierced for an outlet.
Well, instead of the mad haste and the ruinous lack of organization which
I expected to find, my broods show me in their glass prison an exceedingly
well regulated workshop. One insect, one only, works at perforating the
cork. Patiently, with its mandibles, grain by grain, it digs a tunnel the
width of its body. The gallery is so narrow that, in order to return to
the tube, the worker has to move backwards. It is a slow process; and it
takes hours and hours to dig the hole, a hard job for the frail miner.</p>
<p>Should her fatigue become too great, the excavator leaves the forefront
and mingles with the crowd, to polish and dust herself. Another, the first
neighbor at hand, at once takes her place and is herself relieved by a
third when her task is done. Others again take their turn, always one at a
time, so much so that the works are never at a standstill and never
overcrowded. Meanwhile, the multitude keeps out of the way, quietly and
patiently. There is no anxiety as to the deliverance. Success will come:
of that they are all convinced. While waiting, one washes her antennae by
passing them through her mouth, another polishes her wings with her hind
legs, another frisks about to while away the period of inaction. Some are
making love, a sovran means of killing time, whether one be born that day
or twenty years ago.</p>
<p>Some, I said, make love. These favored ones are rare; they hardly count.
Is it through indifference? No, but the gallants are lacking. The sexes
are very unequally represented in the population of a cell: the males are
in a wretched minority and sometimes even completely absent. This poverty
did not escape the older observers. Brulle [Gaspard August Brulle
(1809-1873)], the author of many works on natural history and one of the
founders of the Societe entomologique de France, the only author whom I am
able to consult in my hermitage, says, literally: 'The males do not appear
to be known.'</p>
<p>I, for my part, know them; but, considering their feeble number, I keep
asking myself what part they play in a harem so disproportionate to their
forces. A few figures will show us what my hesitations are based upon.</p>
<p>In twenty-two Osmia cocoons (Osmia tricornis), the total census of the
inmates yields three hundred and fifty-four, of whom forty-seven are males
and three hundred and seven females. The average number of inmates,
therefore, is sixteen individuals; and there are six females at least to
one male. This disparity is maintained, in more or less marked
proportions, whatever the species of the bee invaded. In the cocoons of
the Mason bee of the Sheds, I discover the average proportion to be six
females to one male; in those of the Mason bee of the Walls, I find one
male to fifteen females.</p>
<p>These facts, which I am unable to state with any greater precision, are
enough to give rise to the suspicion that the males, who are even tinier
dwarfs than the females and who, moreover, like all insects, are injured
by a single act of pairing, must, in most cases, remain strangers to the
females. Can the mothers, in fact, dispense with their assistance, without
being deprived of offspring on that account? I do not say yes, but I do
not say no. The duality of the sexes is a hard problem. Why two sexes? Why
not just one? It would have been much simpler and saved a great deal of
foolery. Why such a thing as sex, when the tuber of the Jerusalem
artichoke can do without it? These are the pregnant questions suggested to
me, in the end, by Monodontomerus cupreus, the insect so infinitesimal in
body and so overpowering in name that I had really vowed never to speak of
it again by its official designation.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />