January, 1916. 



American ^gc Journaij 



18 



s 



down when it is not lying on its side, 

 that it is fastened to the cell base by 

 an adhesive secretion which accompa- 

 nies it, that there is at the big end a 

 very minute opening, a micropyle or 

 micropylar area through which the 

 egg is fertilized when it is to become a 

 female, worker or queen. But we did 

 not know that the convex side is to be 

 the ventral part of the larva, the con- 

 cave side being its dorsal surface. We 

 learnt also that it takes a trifle over 

 the three days usually counted to hatch 

 the egg normally, appro.ximately 7G 

 hours. 



The book shows deep study and pro- 

 found scientific research, 86 authorities 

 being quoted. We have no doubt that 

 it will be read with great interest by 

 embryologists everywhere. 



Partlieiiosene.sis 



In the review of Dr. Phillips' book, 

 "Beekeeping," I mentioned one point 

 which I desired to criticise. It is per- 

 haps a little presumptuous on the part 

 of one who has never made micro- 

 scopy a study, and whose notions of 

 bee anatomy are entirely based upon 

 the observations of others, to put for- 

 ward a criticism of so able a student as 

 our friend, but he knows that this dis- 

 cussion is prompted by a desire to ob- 

 tain more light. 



Dzierzon's view of parthenogenesis 

 indicates that "all the eggs in the 

 ovary are eggs which would normally 

 develop into males, and if fertilization 

 occurs the sex is changed to female." 

 This view, clearly stated by Dr. Phil- 

 lips, exactly describes the part of the 

 Dzierzon theory with which he dis- 

 agrees. His reason for doing so is 

 that he has "found that many eggs 

 laid by drone-laying queens fail to 

 hatch and, in fact, are often removed 

 in a short time by the workers." His 

 theory is that some of the eggs are 

 primarily destined to be males and 

 others to be females, and that this rul- 

 ing would agree with the general rule 

 of nature. Then, to use his own words, 

 " It is not improbable that the eggs (of 

 pn unimpregnated queen) destined to 

 be female die for want of fertilization, 

 while the eggs destined to be males, 

 not requiring fertilization, are capable 

 of development." 



In my queen-rearing experience, it 

 happened to us once, I believe it was 

 in 1872 or 1873, that we found sale for 

 seven first-class Italian queens, very 

 late in October. The amount offered 

 for those queens, by a lover of good 

 stock, was so enticing, that we decided, 

 my father and myself, toj sell the 

 queens, which were in very populous 

 colonies, and take the risks of being 

 able to replace them the same season. 

 Queens were not then to be bought as 

 readily as they are now. There were 

 still many drones, as the season had 

 been very prosperous and late. But 

 those queens, hatched early in Novem- 

 ber, had no opportunity to mate, for 

 the weather turned cold suddenly and 

 the time of their rut passed without 

 any opportunity for flight, even though 

 drones might have been present. The 



following spring we found ourselves 

 with seven very pretty and very prolific 

 drone-layers. Their eggs were laid as 

 rtgularly as those of fertilized queens, 

 and their progeny hatched in the most 

 uniform way, small drones from worker- 

 cells and large, full-sized drones, from 

 drone-cells. I do not remember that 

 any of their eggs failed to hatch. True, 

 some of them might have been re- 

 moved by the bees, unknown to us, but 

 this does not seem likely. The little 

 drones appeared as able bodied as the 

 large ones, and according to the Dzier- 

 zon tests must have been propor- 

 tionally as good as the large ones. It 

 goes without saying that we promptly 

 replaced the queens with other breed- 

 ing stock, and never did we have bet- 

 ter early matings than that year, since 

 thousands of drones were produced at 

 a time when there are usually very few. 



In addition to this experience, which 

 leads me to believe that, in Dr. Phillips' 

 cases, the non-hatching eggs which he 

 noticed must have been due to other 

 causes than want of fertilization, I feel 

 somewhat skeptical over the possibility 

 of two kinds of eggs in the ovaries. A 

 good queen lays eggs that hatch as 

 drones in every large cell she meets. 

 She likewise lays worker eggs in every 

 worker-cell. At times she avoids 

 drone-cells. At other times she seeks 

 them. We can readily understand that 

 she may, at will or by certain natural 

 motions, leave an egg unfertilized or 

 cause the spermatheca to do its work. 

 But how would she know, before the 

 egg leaves its particular branch of the 

 oviduct, whether it was of the proper 

 kind to produce a worker ? Why would 

 the sex turn out worker almost inva- 

 riably in early spring, and drone only 

 after a long period of breeding ? When 

 we accept the elder Dadant's theory 

 that the queen seeks drone-cells only 

 when she becomes tired of the oft re- 

 peated pressure on the spermatheca, 

 after having laid tens of thousands of 

 worker eggs, we can readily under- 

 stand her preferences in an active sea- 

 son of laying. 



Those who claim that the Dzierzon 

 theory is incorrect hold that the work- 

 ers change the sex at will. This is 

 going to another extreme. I had oc- 

 casion to discuss this view Utely in 

 the Bulletin of La Suisse Romande, and 

 found the educators with me. 



However, we have much to learn yet. 

 Should this modification of the Dzier- 

 zon theory prove true, we will need to 

 change our text-books. c p. d. 



When a man like E. F. Phillips 

 makes a statement, I feel like endors- 

 ing that statement, even if I know 

 " 'taint so." So when he modifies the 

 Dzierzon theory I do not arise to dis- 

 pute his correctness, but I may be 

 allowed to state difficulties — at least 

 questions — that may arise in the lay 

 mind in adjusting itself to the modi- 

 fied theory. 



Dzierzon says all the eggs in the 

 queen's ovary are male. Dr. Phillips 

 modifies that, saying in effect that 

 there are male and female eggs in the 

 ovary, the male eggs needing no ferti- 

 lization, while the female eggs must be 

 fertilized or they will not hatch; a 

 drone-laying queen laying both kinds 

 of eggs, but the female eggs dying be- 



cause not fertilized. 



The man who thus far in his bee- 

 keeping career has sworn by Dzierzon 

 has been accustomed to think of all 

 eggs as being alike up to the time of 

 their being laid, by some process the 

 egg being made female by fertilization 

 when it enters a worker-cell, and be- 

 ing left male when a drone-cell is ap- 

 proached. (He may have thought that 

 the will of the queen decided the ferti- 

 lization when a smaller cell was en- 

 tered, or that some sort of mechanical 

 pressure acted. To the first of these 

 views Dr. Phillips makes no reference, 

 and dismisses the second, or the Wag- 

 ner theory, by saying, "Since fertilized 

 eggs may be laid in comb foundation 

 when the side walls aie only started 

 and since drone eggs are often laid in 

 worker-cells, this simple explanation 

 cannot be accepted." But the Wagner 

 man had accepted it by saying, " How 

 do you know that when a very shallow 

 cell, or no cell at all, is offered, there 

 may not be a construction practically 

 the same as in a worker-cell '. and it's 

 easy to believe that a cog might be 

 slipped in a worker-cell, leaving a 

 drone-egg there, or else that there was 

 a shortage of the fertilizing material in 

 the spermatheca.") But now he is to 

 understand that the eggs are male and 

 female from the beginning, and ques- 

 tions arise. 



Is there some regular order in which 

 the two kinds of eggs come, and if so 

 what is that order ? Is every tenth 

 egg a drone-egg, or do a hundred 

 worker-eggs, and then ten drone ? Or 

 is there no regular order ? In any case 

 how does the queen know which kind 

 of egg is coming and which kind of 

 cell to seek? In case there is no 

 drone-comb in the hive except one 

 spot in one of the outside combs, won't 

 it hustle the queen to get there from a 

 distant part of the hive each time a 

 drone-egg comes ? 



Then, like as not, he'll go to figuring 

 on special cases. The case where an 

 empty frame is given to a strong col- 

 ony well on in the season, there being 

 no drone-comb in the hive. In 24 hours 

 drone-comb will be built and 2000 or 

 more drone-eggs deposited. As he 

 understands it, there must be 20,000 

 worker-eggs mixed in with the 2000 

 drone-eggs. Does the queen lay the 

 whole 20,000 in 24 hours ? or how is it 

 managed ? 



Until he has answers to these and 

 other questions, he is likely to think 

 the new scheme more difficult to un- 

 derstand than the old, and a good bit 

 harder on the queen. c. c. M. 



Drone-Laying Workers 



In Gleanings in Bee Culture for Nov. 

 1, A. R. Clifton, of Capetown, South 

 Africa, describes the temper of their 

 native honeybees and adds : 



" Besides their temper, many other 

 unusual traits are exhibited. They are 

 very prone to start fertile workers, 

 and I have seen eggs laid by them while 

 queen-cells and even fertile queens 

 were in the hive." 



Xil sub sole novum. Nothing new 

 under the sun. This peculiarity of 

 drone-laying workers, assuming this 



