THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



319 



au exhortation on the duty of desiring the 

 truth, also of dia<^iug for it, scattering it 

 when found, and defending it at all hazards. 

 I regard tliis kind of talk as needless. 

 Moreover, it raises luy dander, and stirs my 

 bile. I know tliat truth is what I am after, 

 and I believe that the readers of the Review 

 and the writers for it. including Prof. Cook^ 

 are in quest of the same precious commodity. 

 "Such statements, IF tkuth, need not dis- 

 quiet anyone." But I do not believe they 

 embody the truth. It is because I deem 

 them erroneous that I deplore their influence 

 as likely to do harm. I consider them a 

 libel on that marvellous concoction— honey 

 — and likely, if accepted, to injure a highly 

 important industry. Who wants to eat the 

 diested victuals of other creatures however 

 cleanly their habits may be ? I don't, and I 

 should not like to be obliged to confess when 

 selling the choicest virgin honey that, pure 

 though it looks, it is the puked-up food of 

 insects. Prof. Cook asserts that "no one 

 need or should object to the statement that 

 honey is digested nectar; — first, because it is 

 truth, ani secondly, because this very diges- 

 tion is in every way wholesome and desir- 

 able." Well, I join issue with the Professor 

 on both firstly and secondly. 



I think I am fairly challenged by the arti- 

 cle in question because at the N. A. B. K. 

 convention held in Detroit four years ago, I 

 opposed the Professor's assertion then and 

 there made that honey is digested nectar. 

 Neither then nor now, were we or are we 

 favored with any proof on the subject. We 

 are expected to bow to the Professor's ipse 

 dixit, " No one need or should object to the 

 assertion." Why not ? I, for one, object to 

 having things rammed down my throat after 

 this fashion, especially when I am prepared 

 to furnish evidence in re'buttal, and believe 

 that I can refute Professor Cook by quoting 

 from the very article now under notice. 



" Digestion is the final and finished result 

 of several processes. Physiologists usually 

 enumerate seven of these processes. It is 

 only claimed that nectar is subjected to one 

 of them, namely, saliva-mixing, and even 

 that is doubtful. Would any sensible man 

 say a coat had been manufactured because 

 the v?ool had been spun, or a sideboard made 

 because the boards had been planed. I said 

 it was doubtful if even saliva-mixing has 

 taken place. The nectar, as it passes from 

 the bee's mouth to the honey-stomach— a 

 better name would be honey-sac— is mixed 



with certain glandular secretions. Who 

 knows positively what they are ? About all 

 we know is that they change the cane-sugar 

 of the nectar into grape-sugar. When this 

 is done, it is ready for storage in the cells. 

 It is done quickly, — during the flight from 

 the field to the hive, and never passes into 

 the food-stomach of the bee, except when 

 the little forager is hungry, and needs a 

 portion of it for food. In tliat case, it passes 

 dow)i instead of up, through what Burmeister 

 has well called the 'stomach-mouth,' into 

 the chyme stomach, where it becomes di- 

 gested, and fit to pass into the blood. It is 

 not digested nectar until it passes into the 

 chyme stomach. It is there and not in the 

 honey-sac that it is changed by the digestive 

 ferment and passes readily into the blood." 



I have expressed my belief that I can re- 

 fute the Professor by a quotation from his 

 own article. Here it is: "We all know that 

 honey is carried in the honey-stomach, 

 (honey-sac), and emptied from it into the 

 cells of the comb." I have capitalized 

 "from it." Stored honey never gets any 

 farther. Consequently, it is not "digested 

 nectar." If it were, it would, as the Profes- 

 sor says farther on, "pass into the blood 

 and hasten on to nourish the tissues." Di- 

 gested nectar never gets into the cells of 

 honey-comb. There is a distinct provision 

 of nature to prevent that. 



Some will no doubt think me very pre- 

 sumptuous in venturing to dispute an asser- 

 tion of Prof. Cook's. But I have the best 

 scientific authority behind me. Cheshire, 

 whose competence not even Prof. Cook will 

 question, speaking of the honey-sac. Vol. I., 

 page 60, says, it "corresponds to the crop of 

 most insects. When nectar is gathered by 

 the foraging bees, it is simply held in store 

 in this cavity, the processes of digestion in 

 no true sense beginning until the next 

 chamber, the chyle-stomach is reached." 

 Again, page <>5: " Let us now investigate in 

 detail the stomach-mouth and chyle stomach. 

 We have already learned that the first of 

 these enables the bee to store honey, which, 

 although carried within her body, does not 

 enter her digestive system." Tha italics are 

 mine. Several pages of Cheshire's incom- 

 parable work, with copious microscopic il- 

 lustrations, make all this plain even to "the 

 unlearned," as Prof. Cook politely styles 

 those of us who do not accept his assertion 

 that honey is "digested nectar." 



