72 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



sweets to their hives ; the finished product is very different indeed 

 from the raw nectar as it is collected, and this change is due to 

 the manipulation given to the material by the bees themselves. 

 It consists primarily; in the reduction of the water content from 

 60 or 75 per cent, to 18 or 20 per cent, of the whole mass ; and, 

 second, in the addition of formic acid as an antiseptic, and possi 

 bly also secretions from other glands located in the head of the 

 bee. The difference between nectar as gathered from the blos 

 soms or floral glands of plants, and thoroughly ripened honey is 

 so great that we may safely say the bees make honey from the 

 nectar. 



They are, therefore, bearers and makers. But the discussion 

 in the apiarian journals as to the relative appropriateness of these 

 two names was evidently based on a misconception as to how 

 specific names are given. Finally, to set this matter straight, as 

 the question seemed to be constantly reappearing, I wrote recently 

 for one of the technical apiarian journals,* a popular explana 

 tion of the manner in which scientific names are given, and 

 quoted the rules of zoological nomenclature applicable to this 

 case. 



The name mellijica was published by Linnaeus himself in 

 1761, in " Fauna Suecicc" notwithstanding the fact that he 

 had previously described the honey-bee under the name melli- 

 fera, in 1758, in the tenth edition of his " Systema Naturce" 



These facts were first shown. I believe, by Prof. K. W. von 

 Dalla Torre, in Vol. X of his " Catalogus Hymenoplerorum" 

 published in 1896; and since, according to Rule XII of the 

 Canons of Zoological Nomenclature, " The law of priority be 

 gins to be operative at the beginning of zoological nomencla 

 ture," and Rule XIII, " Zoological Nomenclature begins at 

 1758, the date of the tenth edition of Systema Naturae," the 

 earlier name mellrfera must take the precedence, without, of 

 course, any reference to its greater or less fitness. Why Linnaeus 

 chose to change the name is not apparent. It is possible that, 

 considering the vast field covered by him and the great number 

 of scientific names which he gave to plants and animals in his 

 systematic work, he may have overlooked, in 1761, the fact that 

 three years before that time he had named and described the 

 honey-bee. Of course he readily recognized that he had the 

 same species before him, so it appears more than probable that 

 he himself thought the term mellijica (honey maker) would be 

 more appropriate than mellifera (honey bearer). At that time 

 no law of zoologists interfered with such a change. It was 

 merely a question as to whether scientific writers would adopt it 



* Gleanings in Bee Culture, XXXIT, No. 5, March i, 1904. 



