152 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Feb. 15 



THE JAWS OF A BEE AND A WASP. 



AT the trial of Utter v. Utter, Prof. Frank 

 JBenton, when called on to take the stand, pro- 

 duced a chart showing the mandibles of a bee 

 and those of a wasp. He explained that he 

 had some specimens of bees and wasps from 

 which the drawings had been made ; that he 

 had a magnifier, and would give the jury an 

 opportunity, if they desired it, to compare the 

 real things themselves with the drawings, if 

 they desired to verify the diagrams. Of these 

 I have had a photo reproduction made in zinc, 

 and the same are shown herewith. The lower 



diagram shows the jaws, or mandibles, of the 

 wasp, an insect that is especially fitted, as will 

 be seen from the notched portions, for cutting 

 and gnawing. The upper drawing shows the 

 jaws of a worker bee. It will be noticed that 

 these last are perfectly smooth and rounding 

 on the edges, and are shaped for forming plas- 

 tic substances, such as wax, at a temperature 

 of 90 degrees. In the opinion of Prof. Ben- 

 ton it was a physical impossibility for a work- 

 er bee to do any cutting or puncturing of the 

 skins of either sound grapes or peaches ; that 

 these jaws, so far from making incisions, 

 would blide laterally over the smooth surface 

 of the fruit without being able to catch hold ; 

 but not so the j iws of the wasp ; owing to 

 their special construction, they would work 

 right through the skin of any fruit without 

 any effort ; that he had seen them in this very 

 act. He had also seen bumble-bees cut through 

 the delicate corolla-tubes of some kinds of 

 flowers, but never a honey-bee. 



It needs only a good magnifier to prove all 

 the professor's statements so far as the general 

 structure of the jaws of bees and wasps was 

 concerned ; and all this talk about bees having 

 teeth, sharp cutting edges, and the like, can 

 be disproved at any time by any one if he has 

 ordinary candor and ordinary skill, without 

 taking the ipse dixit of any one else. 



In this connection it might be well to note 

 that the prosecution, when Prof. Benton ad- 

 mitted that the jaws of the bee were powerful, 

 tried to draw the inference that the bees could 



pinch a hole through the skin of a fruit ; but 

 the professor and other witnesses showed that, 

 while they might be able to exert a powerful 

 squeeze, yet it would be impossible, owing to 

 the structure of their jaws, to get hold of the 

 skin of the fruit, unless, forsooth, it had al- 

 ready been cut into, or cracked or torn open. 

 If the skin were torn so that they could get 

 hold of it, they could then pull it and proba- 

 bly make the opening larger ; but they could 

 no more cut a hole in the surface of a peach 

 than a man could with one hand grab hold of 

 a cannon-ball 15 or 16 inches in diameter. 



We expected the prosecution to ask how it 

 was bees could make holes in quilts. But this 

 could easily have been answered by the fact 

 that, while bees could not cut, they could un- 

 ravel fiber, tearing away piece by piece until 

 they made a hole, in the same way that we 

 can with our fingers p ck to pieces a rope. 



NEEDED FOUL-BROOD LEGISLATION IN MICH- 

 IGAN ; ATTENTION, MICHIGAN BEE- 

 KEEPERS ! 



For two or three years back it has been 

 plain to most progressive bee-keepers in Mich- 

 igan that foul brood, instead of being brought 

 under control, was spreading throughout the 

 State, and that, too, in spite of the fact that 

 there is already a law on the statute-books, 

 which, at the time it was framed, was sup- 

 posed would prevent the spread of the disease; 

 but this law, if I remember correctly, applies 

 only to counties, and lacks the very important 

 provision by which it can be properly enforced. 

 At all events, it is very certain that, in spite of 

 this law, the disease is making progress, and 

 the most progressive bee-keepers of Michigan 

 believe that a new one should be drafted, 

 somewhat on the line of the Wisconsin mea- 

 sure. 



A short time ago the editor of the Bee keep- 

 ers' Review wrote me, asking if it were not 

 possible for the National Bee-keepers' Associa- 

 tion to send Hon. George E. Hilton down to 

 the Michigan legislature — one who has been a 

 member of the House of Representatives of 

 Michigan for two terms — for the purpose of 

 steering (or, if you please, lobbying) the bill 

 through both houses. He added, further- 

 more, that Mr. Hilton was President of the 

 Michigan State Bee-keepers' Association — a 

 bee keeper of extended experience, one who is 

 acquainted with men, and knows how to pull 

 legislative strings at the right time and place. 

 I replied, stating that, so far as I knew, the 

 National Association had never before inter- 

 ested itself in any measure that related to 

 legislation in any particular State ; but that I 

 saw no reason why it could not do so, and that 

 I would lay the matter befor General Manager 

 Secor, who in turn would probably refer it to 

 the Board of Directors. The former apparent- 

 ly coincided with my view, for he sent a circu- 

 lar letter to all the directors, suggesting that 

 whenever bee-keepers of any State, through 

 their State organization, desire to pass a foul- 

 brood law, there be appropriated from the 

 funds of the National Association a sum not 

 to exceed, say, $^25, this sum to be used to de- 

 fray the expenses of a skilled lobbyist in the 



