ARTIFICIAL HONEY AND MANUFACTURED SCIENCE. 73 



pronounced samples adulterated which were known to he the 

 pure products of the flowers gathered by the bees. Every apia- 

 rian specialist knows that during the course of one good honey 

 season, beginning with the early spring bloom of willow, maple, 

 fruit, etc., and ending with the fall bloom of golden-rod, buck- 

 wheat, etc., he can get nearly a dozen different grades or kinds 

 of honey — in color from the very light, almost transparent linden 

 to the turgid and black buckwheat, and in flavor from the mild 

 and delicious sweet to that which is strong, rank, and quite un- 

 palatable to some tastes. Let a person with no special knowl- 

 edge of honey be presented with the former for his sight and 

 palate, and then with the latter, and, ten to one, he will declare 

 that the one sample is not honey at all, but a vile imitation. 

 Then, again, good, pure honey, through mismanagement, may be- 

 come so deteriorated in quality and altered in taste as to at once 

 provoke suspicion of adulteration. 



Granulation was also regarded as a sure test of the purity of 

 honey, but it is not so, as some pure grades, containing only the 

 non-cry stallizable sugar, will not granulate ; while other samples 

 mixed with glucose will granulate. The light-colored and best 

 grades of honey will be fine-grained ' in granulation, while other 

 grades will be coarse-grained and present the appearance of sugar 

 for certain to the uninitiated. 



When an honest man falls into an error, he is always willing 

 to correct it as soon as it is pointed out to him and proved to be 

 such. Prof. Wiley was expected to do that much at least toward 

 repairing the injury he had wittingly or unwittingly done the 

 whole fraternity of bee-keepers. But Prof. Wiley failed to do so, 

 so far as the public knows. He neglected — I may safely say 

 refused — to make the amende honorable. The apiarists became 

 incensed, indignant, and demanded proof of his assertion or a 

 retraction. The professor of science vouchsafed neither the one 

 nor the other. Finally, after years had elapsed, being still hotly 

 pursued by the apiarists and bee journals, especially the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal, Prof. Wiley did manage to make an explana- 

 tion or "statement"; which, however, in no way improved his 

 position before the public either as an honorable man or a pro- 

 fessor of science. About seven years after uttering the slander to 

 the world, he speaks, and makes this astounding admission : 



" At the time, I repeated this statement more in the light of a 

 pleasantry than as a commercial reality, for I did not believe that 

 it was possible commercially to imitate the comb." (Letter dated 

 Washington, D. C, May 29, 1888, addressed to W. M. Evans, and 

 published in the American Bee Journal of June 13, 1888.) 



In this attempted justification of himself Prof. Wiley says he 

 had heard from a friend of his (now deceased) that comb-honey 



