50 Cincinnati Societi/ of Natural History. 



nectary of a plant than any of the modes of lapping, scraping, or capil- 

 huy attraction before mentioned. Not having seen the nectar ascending 

 from the nectar}' through the tube — an almost impossible observation, — 

 I am not prepared to state positively that this is the bee's mode of 

 feeding. All that I assert positively is, that the tongue contains a 

 tube capable of being the instrument of imbibition, and that it ap- 

 pears to me to be far more reasonable that liquid food is imbibed 

 through it than that it is carried back to the pharynx on the out- 

 side of the tongue, in any way that has been as yet suggested. Solid 

 food of course could not be taken in this way except such minute 

 grains of it as might be found floating in the fluid, and imbibed with 

 it. And yet, I possess a specimen of the separated tube, mounted for 

 microscopic observation, in which a large part of the tube is filled 

 with minute pollen grains and other debris. In man}^ of the smaller 

 bees, hoyfQxeY [Andrenidoi, e<c.),the perforation of the tube, at its apex 

 does not exceed 1.1000th of a line, and it is difficult to perceive how the 

 bee's wants can be supplied through such a tube: 3'et we have seen that 

 it is equally difficult to understand how, after passing the short, hairy 

 tongue proper {lingua), its fluid food can ascend the smooth outer sur- 

 face of the remainder and much longer portion of the mouth organs, 

 before it reaches the labium; and the basal joints of the maxillie are 

 so closel_y fitted to the mentum, and the formation of the palpi is such 

 that the formation of Reaumer's "sort of" tube is here seen to be an 

 impossibility. 



But to return to Reaumer, I have stated that he was near the 

 demonstration of the tube. If while "the membraneous sack and line 

 along the length of the tongue" (that is the tubular rod) were pro- 

 truded, he had, with a needle or two, separated the rod from its base, 

 and had scraped off" the adhering remains of the sack, and had then 

 placed the rod on a glass slip of the microscope, in a drop of water, 

 under a thin cover glass, and observed it through the microscope, its 

 tubular nature would at once have been demonstrated by the contained 

 air bubbles, which, under a little pressure, he might have seen chase 

 each other to and fro in the tube, and out at either end; and if still 

 incredulous, he might, after removing the thin cover glass, and placing 

 the glass slip with the tube upon it, still in the drop of water, under a 

 dissecting microscope; have held the tube steadily b}^ placing a 

 finger of the left hand on it, and with a small scalpel or knife blade, in 

 the other hand, pressed against the end of the finger holding the tube 

 in its place, he might have succeeded in makin^i transverse sections of 

 the tube itself, which would have removed all remaining doubt. By 

 simply cutting the tube, or the tongue, across, and holding one piece 

 of it in the forceps, its' structure will be perceived. 



There is, however, one remaining subject of uncertainty. The tube. 



