Who would think of connecting two creatures so unlike, of calling them by the same name? Outside the professional classifiers, no one would dare to.
The Cerceris, more perspicacious, knows each of them for a Weevil, a quarry with a concentrated nervous system, lending itself to the surgical feat of her single stroke of the lancet. After obtaining an abundant booty at the cost of the blunt-mouthed insect, with which she sometimes stuffs her cellars to the exclusion of any other fare, according to the hazards of the chase, she now suddenly sees before her the creature with the extravagant proboscis. Accustomed to the first, will she fail to know the second? By no means: at the first glance she recognizes it as her own; and the cell already furnished with a few Brachyderes receives its complement of Balanini. If these two species are to seek, if the burrows are far from the holm-oaks, the Cerceris will attack Weevils displaying the greatest variety of genus, species, form and coloration, levying tribute indifferently on Sitones, Cneorhini, Geonemi, Otiorhynchi, Strophosomi and many others.
In vain do I rack my brains merely to guess at the signs upon which the huntress relies as a guide, without going outside one and the same group, in the midst of such a variety of game; above all by what characteristics she recognizes as a Weevil the strange Acorn Balaninus, the only one among her victims that wears a long pipe-stem. I leave to evolutionism, atavism and other transcendental "isms" the honour and also the risk of explaining what I humbly recognize as being too far beyond my grasp. Because the son of the bird-catcher who imitates the call of his victims has been fed on roast Robins, Linnets and Chaffinches, shall we hastily conclude that this education through the stomach will enable him later, without other initiation than that of the spit, to know his way about the ornithological groups and to avoid confusing them when his turn comes to set his limed twigs? Will the digesting of a ragout of little birds, however often repeated by him or his ascendants, suffice to make him a finished bird-catcher? The Cerceris has eaten Weevil; her ancestors have all eaten Weevil, religiously. If you see in this the reason that makes the Wasp a Weevil-expert endowed with a perspicacity unrivalled save by that of a professional entomologist, why should you refuse to admit that the same consequences would follow in the bird-catcher's family?
I hasten to abandon these insoluble problems in order to attack the question of provisions from another point of view. Every Hunting Wasp is confined to a certain genus of game, which is usually strictly limited. She pursues her appointed quarry and regards anything outside it with suspicion and distaste. The tricks of the experimenter, who drags her prey from under her and flings her another in exchange, the emotions of the possessor deprived of her property and immediately recovering it, but under another form, are powerless to put her on the wrong scent. Obstinately she refuses whatever is alien to her portion; instantly she accepts whatever forms part of it. Whence arises this insuperable repugnance for provisions to which the family is unaccustomed? Here we may appeal to experiment. Let us do so:
its dictum is the only one that can be trusted.
The first idea that presents itself and the only one, I think, that can present itself is that the larva, the carnivorous nurseling, has its preferences, or we had better say its exclusive tastes. This kind of game suits it; that does not; and the mother provides it with food in conformity with its appetites, which are unchangeable in each species. Here the family dish is the Gad-fly; elsewhere it is the Weevil; elsewhere again it is the Cricket, the Locust and the Praying Mantis. Good in themselves, in a general way, these several victuals may be noxious to a consumer who is not used to them. The larva which dotes on Locust may find caterpillar a detestable fare; and that which revels in caterpillar may hold Locust in horror. It would be hard for us to discover in what manner Cricket-flesh and Ephippiger-flesh differ as juicy, nourishing foodstuffs; but it does not follow that the two Sphex-wasps addicted to this diet have not very decided opinions on the matter, or that each of them is not filled with the highest esteem for its traditional dish and a profound dislike for the other. There is no discussing tastes.
Moreover, the question of health may well be involved. There is nothing to tell us that the Spider, that treat for the Pompilus, is not poison, or at least unwholesome food, to the Bembex, the lover of Gad-flies; that the Ammophila's succulent caterpillar is not repugnant to the stomach of the Sphex fed upon the dry Acridian. The mother's esteem for one kind of game and her distrust of another would in that case be due to the likes and dislikes of her larvae; the victualler would regulate the bill of fare by the gastronomic demands of the victualled.
