1893 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



161 



has been the hard lot of how many inventors! 

 The failure of this hive in France created such 

 a prejudice against movable frames as left that 

 country for a long time d<'cidedly in the rear in 

 apiarian progress. See an article by Charles 

 Dadant in the Amermtn Bee Journal, Yo\. 7, 

 p. 197. Neither the Munn nor Debeauvoys hive 

 made any provision for securing the surplus 

 honev outside of the case holding the frames; 

 and "this defect alone would have proved an 

 insuperable bar to their general use. 

 Dayton, Ohio. L. L. Langstroth. 



Cantinunt. 



IS SUGAR SYRUP CONVERTED INTO HONEY 1 



TUGS. WM. COWAN, THE EDITOR OF THE BRIT- 

 ISH BEE JOURNAL, DEFINES HIS POSITION 

 IN THE MATTER OF DIGESTION; DIGES- 

 TION OF NECTAR; ANALYSIS OF 

 HONEV. ETC. 



In Gleanings for Jan. 1, page 31, I am re- 

 minded of a communication of mine respecting 

 digestion, about which I had entirely forgotten. 

 I have now referred to the article in Glean- 

 ings to which I alluded, and I find that it arose 

 out of the review you were kind enough to 

 make of my book, •' The Honey - bee," on 

 page 333, April 1.5, 1891. The review was a very 

 good digest of what my book contained, and in 

 the first column you ask the question. '"What 

 is digestion '?■' and the reply is given in almost 

 the same words as those found in my book, 

 which are, "The object of digestion is to sep- 

 arate the nutrient part of the food from the 

 non-nutrient, and to convert the former (i. e., 

 the nutrient) into a liquid fit to mingle with 

 the blood, and thus to nourish the body of the 

 insect." To this our friend Professor Cook took 

 exception on page 3,59 of Gleanings for May 1, 

 1891, where he says, '• Mr. Cowan is usually very 

 accurate: but is digestion separating the food ? 

 I should say. digestion is rendering the food 

 capable of being absorbed, and that absorption 

 did the separating." 



To many it may not be apparent that there 

 is any disagreement between the two state- 

 ments; and, so far as the practical bee-keeper 

 is concerned, it would not very much matter if 

 there were. But from a physiological point of 

 view, of course it is interesting to know how 

 digestion is affected. For the definition of the 

 word I might refer to several dictionaries; but 

 I suppose that a dictionary compiled by your 

 best men, and published in your own country, 

 would be looked upon by your countrymen as 

 of considerable authority; I therefore refer to 

 Webster's International Dictionary, revised by 

 Noah Porter, and in the latest edition I find 

 that "to digest" is defined, " To separate [the 

 food] in its passage through the alimentary 

 canal into the nutritive and non-nutritive ele- 

 ments: to prepare, by the action of the diges- 

 tive juices, for conversion into blood; to con- 

 vert into chyme." Here you have what I think 

 is the correct definition of digestion, and I 

 maintain that no absorption could take place 

 without separation first. The food, coming in 

 contact with the gastric juices in the chyle- 

 stomach, is partly dissolved and converted into 

 a liquid fit for absorption at once; the remain- 

 der, which is separated from the liquid portion, 

 is forced, by the muscular wall acting upon it, 

 into the small intestine, where digestion is 

 completed. Here the portion of the food that 

 has escaped the soluble influence of the gastric 

 juice of the stomach is further digested and 

 separated. The digested portion of the food is 

 absorbed, and the residue passes on to the next 

 part of the alimentary system; and as all the 

 nutrient portion has been absorbed, what 



remains is evacuated in the form of excreta. 

 It will thus be seen that the process of diges- 

 tion is both a chemical and a mechanical one. 

 The very act of making the food capable of 

 being absorbed necessitates a separation of it. 



There is another point I should like to touch 

 upon briefly, because I find that, in Gleanings 

 for Jan. 1, 1893, Prof. Cook, in his article on 

 " Sugar-syrup Honey." apparently quotes pas- 

 sages from my book which seem to support his 

 proposition. The question turns upon whether 

 sugar syrup given to bees, and stored by them 

 in the combs, is honey. Prof. Cook maintains 

 that it is; but I am sorry to say that I for one 

 must differ from our friend; and, for reasons 

 which I shall endeavor to explain as briefly as 

 possible, I do not think such a product could be 

 legitimately called honey. If there were any 

 doubt in my mind I would gladly give our friend 

 the benefit of it. He bases his conclusions 

 upon: 



1. His statement that honey is digested nec- 

 tar. 



3. That sugar syrup, after being stored by 

 bees, was pronounced by competent bee-keepers 

 as honey. 



3. That three chemists analyzed it, and could 

 not distinguish it from the best clover and bass- 

 wood honey. 



With regard to the first, he quotes me as sup- 

 porting his hypothesis; but I think I can show 

 that there is a considerable difference between 

 us as to the definition of honey. 



It is true, I state on page 7 of " The Honey- 

 bee," that " the nectar which is gathered from 

 flowers has been converted into honey by a 

 secretion derived from the salivary glands," 

 and I also state that Dr. Planta has shown that 

 this alteration consists in the conversion of the 

 cane sugar in the nectar into grape sugar of 

 honey. But neither Dr. Planta nor myself, nor 

 even Mr. Cheshire, call this digestion, and I 

 think from the explanation I have given above 

 it will be understood why we can not call 

 honey digested nectar. 



By reference to page 106 of my book it will be 

 seen that I say, " The food taken by the 

 mouth enters the oesophagus, which continues 

 through the thorax as a narrow tube, and ex- 

 pands, after it has reached the abdomen, into 

 the honey-sac, this acting as a temporary res- 

 ervoir for the collected nectar. From here the 

 food passes on, to be digested by the action 

 upon it of the gastric juices secreted by cells in 

 the chyle-stomach." It will be seen from this 

 that I do not even mention digestion as com- 

 mencing before the food enters the chyle- 

 stomach. Then on page 110 I say, "By the 

 action of the juice produced by these gastric 

 glands upon the food, in the process of diges- 

 tion in the chyle-stomach, it is changed into 

 chyme. This first stomachial digestion is called 

 chyrnlficntifm.'" Please note that I say " this 

 first" digestion, showing that I consider that 

 digestion does not commence till the food enters 

 the chyle-stomach, nor can it be said to do so in 

 any true sense of the term. That the cane 

 sugar of nectar is converted into the grape 

 sugar of honey is true, but this can not be call- 

 ed digestion. 



Now, there is another quotation made by 

 Prof. Cook to support his theory, taken from 

 my book, on page 10 of Gleanings, which, as 

 printed, is not quite correct, and thus does not 

 convey the meaning intended by me. It is this: 

 " The production of a secretion to assist diges- 

 tion to convert the cane sugar of nectar into 

 the grape sugar of honey." Here the omission 

 of a comma, found in the original, and printing 

 digestion in italics, which is not found in the 

 original, quite alter the meaning, and appear 

 to convey the idea that digestion and conver- 



