This is one step gained. The murderess chooses the under part of the chin as the point attacked in order to strike the principal nerve-centres, the cephalic ganglia, and thus to do away with life at one blow. When this vital seat is poisoned by the toxin, death is instantaneous. Had the Philanthus' object been simply to effect paralysis, the suppression of locomotor movements, she would have driven her weapon into the flaw in the corselet, as the Cerceres do with the Weevils, who are much more powerfully armoured than the Bee. But her intention is to kill outright, as we shall see presently; she wants a corpse, not a paralytic patient. This being so, we must agree that her operating-method is supremely well-inspired: our human murderers could achieve nothing more thorough or immediate. We must also agree that her attitude when attacking, an attitude very different from that of the paralysers, is infallible in its death-dealing efficacy. Whether she deliver her thrust lying on the ground or standing erect, she holds the Bee in front of her, breast to breast, head to head. In this posture all that she need do is to curve her abdomen in order to reach the gap in the neck and plunge the sting with an upward slant into her captive's head. Suppose the two insects to be gripping each other in the reverse attitude, imagine the dirk to slant slightly in the opposite direction; the results would be absolutely different and the sting, driven downwards, would pierce the first thoracic ganglion and produce merely partial paralysis. What skill, to sacrifice a wretched Bee! In what fencing-school was the slayer taught her terrible upward blow under the chin? If she learnt it, how is it that her victim, such a past mistress in architecture, such an adept in socialistic polity, has so far learnt no corresponding trick to serve in her own defence? She is as powerful as her executioner; like the other, she carries a rapier, an even more formidable one and more painful, at least to my fingers. For centuries and centuries the Philanthus has been storing her away in her cellars; and the poor innocent meekly submits, without being taught by the annual extermination of her race how to deliver herself from the aggressor by a well-aimed thrust. I despair of ever understanding how the assailant has acquired her talent for inflicting sudden death, when the assailed, who is better-armed and quite as strong, wields her dagger anyhow and therefore ineffectively. If the one has learnt by prolonged practice in attack, the other should also have learnt by prolonged practice in defence, for attack and defence possess a like merit in the fight for life. Among the theorists of the day, is there one clear-sighted enough to solve the riddle for us?