May 19th of this year Cattaleya Mossiae commenced opening its flowers. A few days afterwards in the morning I was observing a very fine solitary flower. I also noticed a very large humble bee that had lodged in the greenhouse all night. Apparently, he was resting about eighteen inches below the flower, when suddenly he rose up and flew directly to the flower, alighted on the labellum, scrambled up it until he reached the column, which he raised without hesitancy, and using considerable exertion forced his way in; after satisfying himself, backed out and flew away. I made a mental note of the transaction. The result is a seed-pod going on to maturity. For several days a delightful fragrance was exhaled from the decayed flower. An examination disclosed an exudation from the tip of the column, which seemed to be decaying, having turned black. Here I located the source of the perfume, which has dried up.

Again, May 26, 1887, Barkeria spectabilis commenced opening its flowers. A few days afterwards, while admiring a solitary flower on one of the plants, and under the very same conditions as the foregoing, a honey bee alighted upon the broad labellum, seemed all excitement, and made directly for the point of the column which lies very close to the labellum. However, he unhesitatingly raised it up and forced his way in, came out and flew away. This incident I also made a mental note of. The result is, fertilization of Barkeria was effected.

A query presents itself. Why were solitary flowers selected in both cases by entirely different bees? Why did they not enter the other flowers of the same kind close by? There are none of the others fertilized. Is it possible that the flowers of each being solitary were stronger and exhaled a more attractive perfume, which the bees availed themselves of, and not finding it as desirable as they expected after obtaining it, flew directly away. Fort Wayne, Ind., June 24, '87.