558 Mr. John Lowe’s Observations on 
There is only one other point in Dzierzon’s theory te 
which I shall briefly advert. Itis to the change of cha- 
racter which the egg undergoes by its comimg into 
contact with the orifice of the seminal receptacle. If 
the egg, as asserted, brings the germ of male life with 
it from the ovary, and is spontaneously developed into a 
perfect being, independently of fecundation—for I sup- 
pose a drone, notwithstanding Dzierzon’s assertion to the 
contrary, is as perfect a being as a worker or female— 
then the action of the spermatozoids upon the egg must 
not only incite in it a new development, and awaken 
therein the germ of what is described as ‘a more perfect 
being,’ namely, a queen or worker, but it must also 
destroy the germ of male life which it orginally contained, 
and put in "its stead a new being completely different 
im size, sex, and character. This, mdeed, is a wonderful 
metamorphosis, but it is one which scientific investiga- 
tions profess to reveal ! 
“Tn the hive-bee (says Sir John Lubbock, in his 
admirable paper on the Ova and Pseudova* of Insects), 
the ovarian development of the ova and pseudova must 
apparently be identical, sce it would appear that, in 
normal instances, it is not decided until after the ovarian 
product has entered the oviduct, whether it is to be an 
ovum or a pseudovum ; in other words, whether it be 
impregnated or not.” 
“At the same time, the sex of the future animal is 
determined, since, according to MM. Leuckart and 
Siebold, eggs always in this. species produce females, 
pseudova give birth to males.” 
““We are, then, justified in asserting, that in the 
present state of our knowledge no difference can be 
pointed out between the ovarian development of the 
pseudovum in insects and that of the ovum.” f 
It was admitted by Leuckart, and confirmed by Siebold, 
that 1t is impossible, from the external condition of the 
bee’s egg, to arrive at any conclusion as to the sex of 
the bee which is to be developed init. Leuckart also 
admitted that he failed, by the assistance of the 
that she is now fertile, having begun to lay on the thirty-first day of her 
age. 
* Sir John has recently suggested that ‘“*Kuova” would be a more 
appropriate term than Prof. Huxley’s “ Pseudova,” as they are not 
“false eggs,” but, on the contrary, “are true eggs, and something 
more.’—[Proc. Ent. Soc. 1866, p. Ix.]. 
+. Sir John Lubbock “ On the Ova and Pseudova of Insects.” 1858. 
22 
