300 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 15. 



better and more satisfactory means of travel, 

 that we are for ever " agin " the horse. " Oh, 

 yes!" some of you will say: "but ou7' horse 

 does not behave in that way." Very likely; 

 but we never saw a horse with enough " git up 

 and dust " but that was inclined to either buck 

 or be a little fractious at times. A gentle sort 

 of horse that anybody can drive, and that will 

 carry you over the ground at a good rate of 

 speed, is a very rare animal. Except, perhaps, 

 during the few hours of learning, the bicycle 

 never behaves itself unseemly. Really, if we 

 were in Rambler's place (and every rambler 

 ought to have one) we would have a bicycle. 

 We would climb mountains and coast 'em— in 

 fact, go almost everywhere a mustang could 

 travel, with a "heap" more comfort; and we 

 would have things all our own way too. 



N. B.— The bicycle is also well adapted for 

 bachelors.] 



THE METZGER THEORY. 



DR. MILLER EXPLAINS IT. 



The theory advanced by Mr. Metzger, rather 

 as an established fact than as a theory, has been 

 the theme of much discussion across the water. 

 In brief, the theory is that the spermatheca is 

 notmerely a receptacle for storing and giving as 

 needed the spermatozoa, but a gland in which 

 new spermatozoa are produced as needed. By 

 some the theory is hailed as a great discovery. 

 Some, jealous for the reputation of Dzierzon. 

 oppose the new theory, on the ground that it 

 comes in conflict with the theory of partheno- 

 genesis. Others find no conflict between the 

 two theories, the Metzger theory being consid- 

 ered only a step farther in the same direction 

 as Dzierzon's. Still others, and among them 

 names of great weight, consider the whole 

 thing as a baseless fabric. In reply to the ar- 

 gument that there is not room enough in the 

 spermatheca for the storage of a sufficiput 

 number of spermatozoa to last through the life 

 of a queen. Prof. Leuckart replies that there 

 Is sufficient room for thirty millions. 



In support of the new theory. Dzierzon is 

 quoted assaying that an [t'llian' queen mated 

 with a black drone, in several cases that had 

 come under his observation, produced at first 

 black, yellow, and mixed workers, but later in 

 life produced only pure Italians. Schoenfeld 

 adroitly tui-ns this argument against the 

 Metzger theory. He first says, that, if this 

 were universally true, in order to have pure 

 queens no attention need be paid to the mating, 

 but only keep a queen daughter of a purely 

 mated mother till old enough, and you would 

 have a queen practically purely mated. But 

 taking that only by way of parenthesis, it must 

 be remembered that the new theory does not 

 allow that the spermatozoa would live in the 

 spermatheca till the queen had reached old 

 age. and that only half a million of spermatozoa 

 could find room in the spermatheca. As ten 

 spermatozoa, or about that number, are used 

 up for each egg impregnated, the half-million 

 received from the drone would be used up in 

 six or eight weeks, so at that time pure workers 

 should appear instead of waiting till the queen 

 became old. 



Herr Reepen gives a heavv blow to the new 

 theory by recalling a case in which Doenhoflf 

 crushed a part of the abdomen of a queen, and 

 after that she laid drone eggs only. Dissection 

 showed that the passage from the spermatheca 

 was destroyed, hence nothing could pass from' 

 the spermatheca to the egg. But according to 

 the new theory, as drone and worker eggs are 



both impregnated from the spermatheca, these 

 eggs, instead of producing drones, should not 

 have hatched at all. 



According to present appearances, the pros- 

 pect of long life for the new theory is not of the 

 most flattering kind. 



THE NEW ARTIFICIAL COMB. 



As an objection to the use of comb completely 

 built out. one thing is mentioned that would 

 perhaps be heartily approved by Doolittle, 

 Hutchinson, and others. It is. that the vigor- 

 ous building of comb in the hive is needed as 

 an incentive to active work in the field. In- 

 deed, this is strongly emphasized by more than 

 one, and the source from which this opposition 

 comes makes it worthy of consideration. 



One writer goes so far as to say, that, if bees 

 are prevented from secreting wax, in time the 

 character of the bees will be changed sufficient- 

 ly to show plainly deterioration, and this may 

 occur within even two or three years. All this 

 may, perhaps, lead to experiments and observa- 

 tions that may be of value in helping to estab- 

 lish the truth on whichever side it lies. Indeed, 

 it may not be necessary to institute any new 

 experiments, but to bring into play observa- 

 tions that have already been made, having a 

 direct bearing on the subject in hand. It 

 seems somewhat reasonable that active opera- 

 tions in the hive might incite to greater dili- 

 gence in the field. In the face of that, however, 

 stands the oft-confirmed observation, that, 

 where no combs are needed to he built, the field 

 work is greatest; in other words, that the yield 

 of extracted honey runs away beyond that of 

 comb. And if deterioration results from the 

 suppression of comb-building, ought not some 

 of those who have for years run for extracted 

 honey only, be able to tell us whether any great 

 harm had come to those colonies which contin- 

 uously had been prevented from secreting wax? 



DETERMINATION OF SEX. 



What it is that determines that one egg 

 shall produce a drone when laid in a drone- 

 cell, and that another, laid in a worker-cell, 

 shall be impregnated so as to bring forth a 

 worker, has been the subject of some specula- 

 tion and discussion. Some have held that the 

 will of the queen was in control, and Quincy 

 has been handled somewhat roughly for sug- 

 gesting that compression of the queen's body 

 was in some way efl'ective. Without pretend- 

 ing that any thing could be positively proven 

 in the case. I have contended that there was as 

 much proof for the compression theory as the 

 will theory. Lately Mrs. Atchley gave, in the 

 American Bee Journal, a report of an occur- 

 rence observed by her that she thought elTec- 

 tually settled the compression theory. A queen 

 laid several eggs while standing on Mrs. A.'s 

 hand, and these eggs were placed in cells. Some 

 of them were protected, and hatched out. and 

 in every case a worker was produced. And yet 

 it is just possible that some particular position 

 of the body might be assumed in occupying a 

 drone-cell that would be different from that of 

 a queen in a worker-cell, in such way that the 

 position on the hand might be classed with that 

 in the worker-cell. 



H. Reepen, in CentralMatt, advances the ar- 

 gument that Apis dorsata has only one kind of 

 comb, drones and workers being produced in 

 cells of the same size. I can't see any po.ssible 

 reply to that argument. Indeed, I think I must 

 entirely decline further allegiance to the com- 

 pression theory. But I am not ready to swear 

 allegiance to the will theory. Like Mr. Reepen 

 and others. I think it will be more wise to say 

 it's one of the things " I don't know." 



Marengo, 111. C. C. Miller. 



