278 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



[Dec. 1, 1870. 



Achatina acicula. — What I take an interest in 

 myself I always imagine others must also, and this 

 must be my apology for intruding upon your time. 

 In my garden I have occasionally met with living 

 specimens of that pretty little shell, Achatina acicula, 

 at the roots of herbaceous peonies, Iris fcetidissima, 

 fol. var., and Germanica, lAlivm croeeum and spe- 

 ciosum. In some cases the plants were not quite 

 healthy; would this, therefore, support the theory of 

 their being carnivorous — as seeking parasitic grubs 

 feeding on the roots ? I had never found any speci- 

 mens previously in Surrey, although in lists of the 

 Messrs. G. S. and E. Saunders, of the London and 

 Freshwater Mollusca found in the neighbourhood of 

 Reigate, it is stated, " Some specimens found dead 

 in an old wall near Reigate Heath." In Dorset- 

 shire I could generally procure living examples 

 at the base and in the lamella? of small rocks 

 which crop out from the herbage on the Downs. 

 At Bath, I remember, a large number (all dead) 

 were once found in an ancient stone coffin, mixed 

 with sandy debris, which had evidently been washed 

 in by water percolating, and here finding a small 

 reservoir. — John E. Daniel, Epsom. 



Bee Progeny.— -Having recently read a new 

 " Bee Book," by Mr. Pettigrew, I was astonished 

 to find that he held the doctrine that the working 

 bees have the power of producing queen, worker, or 

 drone, at pleasure, from any egg! I thought it was 

 already thoroughly proved, and universally acknow- 

 ledged, that the eggs, when laid, were of different 

 sexes — that the power which the workers possess 

 of changing a worker egg, or grub not more than 

 three days old, into a queen, was only a process of 

 development. A circumstance occurred in my api- 

 ary, during the year 1SGS, which, to my mind, proves 

 that working bees have not the power of producing 

 queens from drone eggs. On the 9th of March, 

 1868, 1 observed that a hive which ought to have 

 been one of my strongest, had at its mouth a dead 

 drone, not thoroughly developed. On the following 

 day I found another; and on the 24th of April I 

 observed a drone from this hive on the wing. The 

 appearance of drones so unusually early for this 

 part of the country excited grave suspicions on my 

 part as to the capabilities of the queen. However, 

 I allowed things to go on until the 5th of Juue, by 

 which time the drones had increased in number, 

 but the workers had dwindled to a few. In the 

 middle of the day I drove the hive and removed 

 the queen, which my note-book says was very 

 decrepit '. The hive contained drone brood only. 

 To the bees (deprived of their queen) I gave a 

 piece of worker comb, containing eggs, and brood 

 in all stages, from a pure Ligurian stock. The 

 bees only attempted to raise one queen. In this 

 they were successful. She had the characteristic 

 marks of the Ligurian, but was very small, and 



turned out (much to my surprise) to be a drone 

 breeder. She was not only smaller, but much 

 more active than queens generally are during ovipa- 

 rition. On the 15th of July I removed a queen 

 from a black stock of bees, and on the 23rd of the 

 same month I destroyed every queen cell, giving it 

 a piece of worker comb, containing eggs, and brood 

 in all stages, from this drone breeder. The bees 

 formed many queen cells on this comb, but every 

 cell produced a drone. I opened some of the 

 sealed queen cells, and satisfied myselfi that each 

 contained a drone ; others I allowed to hatch in 

 due course, but not a single queen was produced. — 

 C. F. George. 



Grey Phalarope (P. lobatus). — A Sussex paper 

 of the 12th Nov. reports the capture of two speci- 

 mens of the] Grey Phalarope in the neighbourhood 

 of Littlehampton, in that county. Both birds were 

 shot on ponds at some distance from the sea, having 

 been probably driven inland by stress of weather. 

 —J.R. 



Nature as a Bone-setter.— Many readers of 

 Science-Gossip would not know, perhaps, what to 

 do for a small bird with a broken leg. Let me 

 state two cases in which Nature did everything. 

 On the 8th of March last a Cirl Bunting of mine 

 broke what would generally be called the thigh- 

 bone of its left leg. I presently bound it up as 

 best I could, the shortness and fleshiness of the 

 limb causing much difficulty in the operation. The 

 bird was then put into a cage by itself, and soon 

 succeeded in slipping off the bandage. A second 

 bandage shared the same fate, and then we left the 

 patient in the hands of Nature. The whole weight 

 of the body was supported for about three weeks 

 on the sound limb, the maimed one being closely 

 drawn up in a natural sitting position, with the toes 

 and claws all folded together. At the end of that 

 time, however, the foot was allowed to press gently 

 on the floor of the cage, or on the low perch which 

 had been resorted to very soon after the accident ; 

 thenthe toes gradually opened, the perch was clasped, 

 and at the end of a month the cure was effected. 

 The second case was that of a Nuthatch which met 

 with the very same fracture, through a moment's 

 entanglement caused by fright at the sudden fall of 

 a log in the aviary. The poor bird seemed so much 

 alarmed, that I did nothing more than place food 

 and water where he could get them most easily. 

 Eor a day or so the leg drooped uncomfortably, but 

 then it got into position, and the process of healing 

 was precisely the same as in the former case, only 

 about a week slower. On the 17th of September, 

 the bone was broken, and at the end of October 

 •the bird was perfectly well ; he now runs and flies 

 about, and clings to the wires as if nothing had 

 ever happened. — T. S. Carte. 



