HONEY. 



BY J. FORD SEMPHRS. 



THERE appears to be occasional misapprehension witli 

 respect to the relation existing between hone}^ and 

 nectar. Not because the subject has failed to receive 

 ample attention from various writers, but because oi the 

 presence of certain established, but misleading expressions. 

 We often speak indiscriminately of nectar and honey as 

 one and the same thing. The habit of calling plants that 

 yield nectar, honey plants, has become in ordinary usage, 

 almost a necessity. 



The term honev plant is misleading in that it conveys 

 to the mind of the average la3^man the idea that honey is 

 the direct product of the flowers. So it is taken for grant- 

 ed that the bees play the roll simply of gatherers. Such a 

 notion can not be accepted by those familiar with the 

 habits of the honej'^ bee. 



What the bees do find in the blossoms is nectar. Under 

 certain conditions some species of plants may secrete what 

 to all appearances is honey. Such cases however are to 

 be regarded rather as exceptions. It may then be natur- 

 ally asked what the difference is between the two sub- 

 stances? A partial answer may be had by examining 

 them as they are found in the hive. With that end in view 

 we will place in a vigorous colony of bees, during the early 

 morning hours, a perfectly empty honey comb. A day, of 

 course, must be selected when any wide spread nectar 

 yielding plant, white clover for example, is actively pro- 

 ducing nectar. 



Towards evening in removing the comb it will be 

 noticed that the cells are more or less filled with a thin 

 watery liquid ; so thin indeed that it may be readily 

 poured from the comb. Aside from the fact that it is 

 sweet there is little about the liquid to suggest hone3^ 

 This, however, is nectar very nearl^^as we would find it in 

 the blossoms if we could gather it ourselves. 



Our inquir3' also involves in a measure the problem of 

 nectar formation in plants, a subject claiming separate 



