He also gives us a still more remarkable observation, which indeed, I must candidly say, does not appear to me credible. I am, therefore, glad to add that it does not appear very distinctly from the account whether the author himself made the observation, or had it narrated to him by his guide. But here is the observation in his own words:-- While studying the habits of the cutting ant I was tempted to make a night visit to a farm some distance from camp, by the farmer's story of depredations made by these insects upon certain plants and vegetables. A long, dark tramp, a blind and vain search among the fields, compelled us at last to call out the countryman from his bed. He led us directly to one of the cutting ants' nests, which was overshadowed by a young peach tree. 'There they be, sir,' cried he triumphantly. They were agriculturals! So also were the other nests shown. The reason for this confounding of the two ants on the part of the people hereabouts, and the reason for the 'cutting' operations of our harvesters, will be explained farther on. It is only in point here to say that the farmer affirmed that the ants under the peach tree had stripped off the first tender leaves last spring, so that scarcely one had been left upon the limbs. I am convinced that the reason for this onslaught was the desire to be rid of the obnoxious shade, and open the formicary to the full light of the sun. From this account it is not very clear whether the writer himself saw evidence of the former denudation of the tree, and if so whether there was any indication, other than the word of the farmer, that the denudation had been effected by the ants. To make this conclusion credible the best conceivable evidence would be required, and this, unfortunately, is just what we find wanting. Somewhat the same remarks may be made on the following quotation from the same writer, though in this case his view is to some extent supported by an observation of Moggridge, as well as by that of Ebrard already quoted:--