Should I be more fortunate if I obliged the Cerceris to defend herself? I enclosed one with a Cleonus in a bottle, irritating them by shaking it. The Hymenopteron, sensitive by nature, was more impressed than the other prisoner, with its dull, heavy organisation; she thought of escape, not attack. Their parts were exchanged; the weevil became the aggressor, sometimes seizing with the end of its trunk a foot of its mortal foe, who made [[64]]no attempt at defence, so terrified was she. I could devise nothing more; my desire to be present at the dénoûment had only added to former difficulties. Well, let us try again.
A luminous idea flashed upon me, bringing hope, so naturally did it touch the very heart of the question. Of course, it was the right thing and must succeed. My disdained game must be offered to the Cerceris in the heat of the chase—then, absorbed and preoccupied, she will not discover its imperfections. I have already said that on returning from the chase the Cerceris alights at the foot of the incline at some distance from the hole, whither she laboriously drags the prey. What I then had to do was to deprive her of her victim, drawing it away by one foot with pincers, and instantly throwing her the living weevil in exchange. This manœuvre succeeded perfectly. As soon as the Cerceris felt the prey slip under her body and escape her, she stamped with impatience, turned round, and perceiving the weevil which had replaced hers, flung herself upon it and clasped it in order to carry it away. But she promptly perceived that this prey was alive, and then the drama began and ended with inconceivable rapidity. The Cerceris faced her victim, seized its proboscis with her powerful jaws and grasped it vigorously, and while the weevil reared itself up, pressed her forefeet hard on its back as if to force open some ventral articulation. Then the tail of the murderess slid under the Cleonus, curved and darted its poisoned lancet swiftly two or three times at the joining of the prothorax, between the first and second pair of feet. In a twinkling all was over. Without [[65]]one convulsive movement, with no motion of the limbs such as accompany the death of an animal, the victim fell motionless for ever, as if annihilated. It was at once wonderful and terrible in its rapidity. Then the assassin turned the Weevil on its back, placing herself body to body with it, her legs on either side of it, and flew off. Three times I renewed the experiment with my three Weevils, and the same scene was always enacted.
Of course, each time I gave the Cerceris back her first prey and withdrew my Cleonus to examine it at greater leisure. This examination only confirmed my opinion of the terrible skill of the assassin. It is impossible to find the slightest trace of a wound, or the smallest flow of vital liquids from the point which was struck. But the most striking thing is the rapid, complete annihilation of all movement. Vainly did I seek even immediately after the murder for any trace of sensibility in the three Weevils done to death under my eyes—neither pinching nor pricking provoked it; to do so required the artificial means already mentioned. Thus these robust Cleonus, which, pierced alive with a pin and fixed by a collector on his fatal sheet of cork, would have struggled for days, weeks, nay, whole months, instantly lose all power of motion from the effect of a little prick which inoculates them with a minute drop of poison. Chemistry knows none so active in so small a dose; scarcely could prussic acid produce such an effect, if, indeed, it could do so at all. It is not then to toxology, but to physiology and anatomy that we must turn to find the cause of such instantaneous catalepsy; it is not so much [[66]]the great virulence of the poison injected, as the importance of the organ injured by it which we must consider in order to explain these marvels. What, then, is found at the point where the sting penetrates? [[67]]
V
ONE SKILFUL TO SLAY
The Hymenopteron has partly revealed her secret by showing us where the sting strikes. But does that explain the question? Not yet, by any means. Let us retrace our steps, forget for a moment what the insect has taught us, and consider the problem set before the Cerceris. The problem is this: to lay up in an underground cell a certain number of heads of game which may suffice to nourish the larva hatched from the egg laid upon the heap of provender.
At first sight this storing of food appears simple enough, but reflexion soon discovers graver difficulties. Our own game is brought down by a shot and killed with horrible wounds. The Hymenopteron has refinements unknown to us; she chooses to have her prey intact, with all its elegance of form and colour. No broken limbs, no gaping wounds, no hideous disembowelment. Her prey has all the freshness of the living insect; she does not destroy an atom of the fine-coloured powder which the mere contact of our fingers deflowers. If the insect were really dead, really a corpse, how difficult it would be for us to obtain such a result! Any one can slay [[68]]an insect by stamping brutally on it, but to kill it neatly leaving no sign is no easy operation, within every one’s power. How many of us would be at our wits’ end if we had to kill on the spot, without crushing it, a little creature so tenacious of life that even beheaded it still goes on struggling! One must have been a practical entomologist before thinking of asphyxiation, and here, again, success would be doubtful with the primitive methods of vapour of benzine or burnt sulphur. In this deleterious atmosphere the insect struggles too long, and tarnishes its brightness. One must have recourse to more heroic methods—for instance, to the terrible exhalations of prussic acid slowly disengaging themselves from strips of paper impregnated with cyanide of potassium, or better still, as being without danger to the collector, to the thunderbolt of vapour of bisulphide of carbon. It requires a real art, an art calling to its aid the redoubtable arsenal of chemistry, to kill an insect neatly; to do that is what the elegant method of the Cerceris brings about so quickly, if we admit the stupid supposition that her prey really becomes a dead body.
A dead body! But that is by no means the diet of the larvæ, little ogres greedy for fresh meat, to whom game ever so slightly tainted would inspire insurmountable disgust. They must have fresh meat with no high taste—that first sign of decay. Yet the prey cannot be laid up alive in the cell like animals destined to furnish fresh meat to the crew and passengers of a vessel. What would become of a delicate egg laid among living food? What would become of the feeble larva, a worm bruised by the slightest [[69]]thing among vigorous Coleoptera moving their long spurred legs for whole weeks? It is absolutely necessary—and here we seem caught in a blind alley—to obtain deathly immobility with the freshness of life for the interior organs. Before such an alimentary problem the best instructed man of the world would stand helpless—even the practised entomologist would own himself at a loss. The larder of the Cerceris would defy their reasoning powers.
Let us then imagine an academy of entomologists and physiologists, a congress where the question should be discussed by Flourens, Majendies, Claude Bernards. To obtain at once complete immobility and long preservation of food, the first and most natural and simple idea would be that of preserved meats. One would invoke some antiseptic liquid, as the illustrious savant of the Landes did with regard to his Buprestids, and attribute such virtue to the poisonous fluid of the Cerceris, but this strange quality has yet to be proved. Gratuitous hypothesis replacing the unknown quantity of the preserving liquid may perhaps be the final verdict of the learned assembly, as it was that of the naturalist of the Landes.