Jan. 29, 1903. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



71 



separated body. The way in which they are neverthe- 

 less closely connected, I tried to explain in different articles. 



Another theory is possible : We can say some ancestors 

 of the queen had all the organs and instincts which we at 

 present observe with the worker-bees, and the power to 

 transmit these peculiarities remain latent in the queens, 

 and appear reg^ularly by a certain nourishment of the 

 larva?. This theory is very improbable, and, if true, would 

 make impossible any further evolution of the bees. 



If we accept our theory we have no more difficulty. In 

 the same way, as it is possible, that the egg of a mammalia 

 inherits the disposition to develop into an animal with the 

 same form of the head or the legs, etc., as the parents have ; 

 it is impossible, too, that the eggs produced by thi&conibinei/ 

 female bee can develop into a queen or into a worker-bee 

 (or into a drone, if not impregnated) : and which one of 

 these forms will develop depends entirely on the food given 

 to the larv;e. The food is deciding, but the disposition for 

 these different developments must be inherited. The fact 

 that in the female bee the sexual organs are in a body sepa- 

 rated from the body which contains the nourishing and 

 blood-forming organs, is a peculiarity of the bees, and does 

 not alter the functions of the organs at all. The discovery 

 of how these different bodies work together is one of the 

 most important discoveries in the physiology of bees, and 

 solves problems which were unsolvable before, and it was 

 the purpose of my article to explain this. It is astonishing 

 that all this is entirely ignored by the bee-keepers in the 

 United States. 



On page 568 (1902) Prof. Cook says: "This mother- 

 queen had the power to transmit them [the good qualities 

 of the worker-bee] else they [the young generation of 

 worker-bees] would nat possess them." Just so. But the 

 question which I raised is : How can she transmit these 

 qualities which she or her next ancestors never possessed ? 



If an Italian queen is mated to a black drone, thedrones 

 from this queen, according to parthenogenesis, will be pure 

 Italian drones ; but if our theory is correct, and the worker- 

 bees are hybrids, these drones should show at least a small 

 sign of black blood. Different prominent bee-keepers 

 (among them Mr. Doolittle) are said to have observed this 

 small amount of black blood. Some concluded, from this 

 fact, that parthenogenesis was an error. As we had other 

 proofs for parthenogenesis, we considered these observa- 

 tions as impossible, and mistakes ; but if we accept our 

 theory we have no more difficulty in explaining the fact. 

 That the influence of black and hybrid nurse-bees is not 

 more visible in the color of the offspring is no proof against 

 the theory, as the power to transmit certain pecularities 

 may be different, so that queen and drone have more power 

 to transmit the color. 



What Prof. Cook says about the evolution of animals, 

 especially bees, is very interesting. That a change of en- 

 vironment causes some variations in animals is surely true, 

 and we see this in all our domestic animals which at present 

 are so much different from the wild animals from which 

 they are descendants, that we, in some cases, have to con- 

 sider them as different species. Bees, too, to a certain de- 

 gree change their habits. If we use very large hives, for in- 

 stance, the bees will by and by lose all desire to swarm. 

 Even here these peculiarities must be transmitted to the 

 progeny from the worker-bees, if they should become fixed. 



Another way of evolution is by acquired peculiarities. 

 If the worker-bees of a colony should, by much stretching 

 and using of the tongue, acquire a longer tongue, this 

 would not help anything toward improving our bees if the 

 worker-bees could not transmit their own peculiarities to 

 the coming generation. Bexar Co., Texas. 



Sweet Clover— Is It a Noxious Weed ? 



BY C. P. DADANT. 



I NOTICE on page 803 (1902) that a reference is made to 

 us in regard to what we have said about the sweet clover 

 being easily destroyed by cattle. I wish to give the sum 

 of my experience on the subject. 



Sweet clover was introduced in this part of the country 

 by an old friend of ours, in the fifties. This person at the 

 same time brought the seed of dandelion. There may have 

 been others who brought these seeds as well, but we know 

 of these instances because our friend told us that the two 

 plants mentioned were not in existence around here until 

 he sent for the seed. He had sowed the sweet clover in a 

 very steep hillside near the Mississippi river, on the com- 



mons, but the place was so steep that the cattle could not 

 get all of it, and it kept reproducing itself till my father 

 went and gathered some of the seed for a trial of it in culti- 

 vation. 



We had then a narrow strip of land fenced in by the 

 original owner on the outside of our farm limits. This 

 strip was three-cornered, and unpleasant to plow, and for 

 that reason we put it to sweet clover. It remained in sweet 

 clover probably for ten years or more. At the end of that 

 time, a survey showed us that it was outside of our farm 

 limits, which we did not know till then. We concluded to 

 remove the fence to the line. This left the sweet clover ex- 

 posed to all the cattle of the vicinity, as all open land was 

 at that time. 



Within two years, that sweet clover which had grown to 

 the height of six feet or more, and had been so thick that a 

 man could make his way through it with difficulty — that 

 clover, I say, had all disappeared, and had given place to 

 the blue-grass and white clover that usually cover our com- 

 mons when regularly pastured. When I say it had all dis- 

 appeared, I mean it in its broadest sense, for there was not 

 a single plant left. It had been entirely destroyed by two 

 years' pasturing that only causes the blue-grass and white 

 clover to thrive that much better in the same spot. Of 

 course, it was close grazing that did it. Our farmers will 

 all remember that pasturage became very short upon the 

 commons of Illinois just before the law was passed which 

 forbade cattle running at large. Had this been a fat pasture, 

 I suppose that enough of the sweet clover would have been 

 left to keep it alive in a small way. 



Now the fact I have just narrated evidences the ease 

 with which the clover can be eradicated, and this is of some 

 use to the bee-keeper. Many persons have accused bee- 

 keepers of introducing a noxious weed when they sowed 

 sweet clover in their neighborhood. But this is not a nox- 

 ious weed. Although it will grow wherever other weeds 

 will grow, it does not invade cultivated fields. It cannot in- 

 vade them since it is a biennial, and therefore offers two 

 seasons in succession for its eradication. Granting that it 

 may come up in a field during the year, it cannot bloom the 

 first season, and therefore the plowing of the following 

 spring will destroy it before it has seeded itself. 



Sweet clover is rank in growth, and masters the soil 

 only in out-of-the-way places where neither stock nor culti- 

 vation interferes with it, and in those places it takes the 

 places of much more noxious weeds than itself. It emits a 

 sweet perfume, which is certainly preferable to the smell of 

 the jimson- weed (datura stramonium), and it does not cause 

 diseases like the ragweed which we all know is responsible, 

 through its pollen, for the existence of hay-fever — a disease 

 which is only known where the ragweed exists. The sweet 

 clover not only occupies the place of the latter weed but 

 chokes it out of existence by its most vigorous growth 

 wherever these two weeds are left free to fight the battle of 

 the " survival of the fittest." In addition, sweet clover is 

 one of the greatest soil-enriching plants in existence, for its 

 roots are long and large, and it takes most of its nourish- 

 ment from the atmosphere. 



Those who complain of the existence of sweet clover 

 do not take into consideration the fact that some weeds 

 must grow where sweet clover grows. So is it not much 

 better, and more profitable to the community, to have a use- 

 ful honey-producing, sweet-smelling, healthy and a soil-en- 

 riching plant, than the rank, ugly and unhealthy, useless 

 ragweed ? 



Do not understand me as saying that sweet clover is a 

 good pasture plant. If it is allowed to grow, it is too rank 

 for a good pasture plant. If pastured close, it does not 

 stand the strain. So it is only an inferior pasturage plant. 

 But it makes good feed for stock if taken at the right time. 

 We have a friend in the Province of (Juebec~a Mr. Pelo- 

 quin— who has repeatedly told us that sweet clover proved 

 quite a boon to them in their cold climate. When spring 

 opens in Quebec, it takes a long time for pastures to be- 

 come good. But it appears that sweet clover of the second 

 year's growth gets to be about a foot high before any grass 

 can be had. They then mow it and feed it to the stock. 

 This mowing does it no harm, and they can still count upon 

 a honey crop and quite a little feed from it even after hav- 

 ing secured from it an early stock food-crop which nothing 

 else would furnish. 



I think the reader will agree with me that the sweet 

 clover deserves no blame, but that, on the contrary, it 

 should be introduced on all soils where weeds are expected 

 to grow, even if it were not a first-class honey-producing ~ 

 plant. Hancock Co., 111. 



