1896. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



263 



ever, because it is as sure to make a man sick as he eats it. 

 The hooey in its purity is as clear as spring water, but its 

 taste, when examined closely, will tell a man there is some- 

 thing wrong. It has a strong, bitter taste, which makes it 

 disagreeable. 



The symptoms of the poisoning are a sickmess in the 

 stomach, a coldness in the top of the head, with cold and hot 

 flashes in the face, and a general stupor ; the sight becomes 

 dim, the skin on the hands, by rubbing, seems to be dead, with 

 a tingling sensation. I want to say right here that this pois- 

 oning is not dangerous in the least — it makes a man vomit well 

 and freely, and when that is said all is said. This sickness 

 doesn't last longer than an hour. 



The plant is well described in Novice's article, but we 

 mountain people don't call it " laurel." We have laurel, but 

 it is entirely different in its blooming from ivy, as laurel forms 

 balls one year for its blooming the next, and ivy blooms on the 

 new growth each year. I have never seen honey-bees working 

 on laurel bloom. 



The ivy doesn't secrete nectar every year, nor does it 

 every other year, but say once in ten years, and you will be 

 close onto it. We don't have ivy here limited to 4U acres, but 

 have it by the 1,000 acres. 



I am not writing this to get up a controversy, but if any 

 reader disputes this, I will send him a sample in the como, if 

 he will send me the cost of something to ship it in, and then 

 pay the express charges ; and if he will eat it, and it doesn't 

 make him think he is trying throw up his sock-heels, I will 

 pay back all charges. 



My bees are all wintering on this poisonous honey now. 

 We had a general flow of it last year. I extracted some 300 

 or 400 pounds of it, and just quit, knowing I did not want it, 

 and knew that the bees would need it this winter. 



Mr. A. I. Root, in his " A B C of Bee-Culture," is correct. 

 If he had come out plain, and said it was a fact, he would 

 have been correct. 



Novice, in his second paragraph, seems to be solid in his 

 opinion, and it may be true that ivy, in his place, doesn't 

 secrete nectar, but I know it does here along the mountains 

 of East Tennessee, but not often. 



In his third paragraph he says he doesn't know whether 

 there are two varieties or not, and that cows will eat the 

 leaves. That is correct, and it will poison them, too. I will 

 say at a venture, there are two varieties, but we call your 

 mountain laurel, "ivy," and have a "laurel" which is en- 

 tirely different, only they are both evergreens. 



I don't want any one to believe a lie, and if any one doubts 

 my statements, I will refer to Sam Wilson and R. A. Shultz, 

 both of Crosby, Tenn. I will also send samples of honey as 

 above stated. Wm. Webb. 



Sutton, Tenn., March 12. 



PARTICULARS OP THE CASE OF HONEY- POISONING. 



On page 825 (1895), under the heading of "Honey from 

 Mountain Laurel," appears an item that I have anxiously 

 hoped would be thoroughly discussed by some of our bright 

 lights in bee-lore, as I think it one of vital importance to the 

 honey-producer, especially in this section where the case oc- 

 curred. It makes no difference to meat present, as I am only 

 " in it" to have something to draw my mind from the cares 

 and worries of office work, but in my dozen or more of hives 

 I find a real enjoyment, that I can get nowhere else, and 

 which I find very beneficial. But I could not let go unnoticed 

 the harsh and unreasonable things said by the ignorant about 

 the bees and their product. But I fear it has had a bad effect 

 on the honey-business in this locality, almost every oue being 

 afraid to use it unless they know it to be all right. 



I am personally acquainted with Mr. Chambers, and I 

 can assure you that the case is not overdrawn by the imagina- 

 tion of any one, as you will see from the enclosed letter from 

 Dr. Elmer, the attending physician, which gives a clear state- 

 ment of the case. I also send a clipping from the daily paper 

 containing the report of Dr. Wormley, who analyzed a portion 

 of the box of honey used, and if you can get any satisfaction 

 as to just what kind of poison he found, I cannot; he claims 

 to have found it in the solid part. Now that means the comb. 

 Have we any record of the bees making poisonous comb '? He 

 found uone in the honey proper; then how could it come 

 from " mountain laurel ?" 



The honey came from Prof. A. J. Rider's cranberry farm 

 — perhaps he could tell of some treatment the comb had been 

 put to, to preserve it from the previous season. Strange to 

 say, this is the only case. I tried to get a sample, but none 

 would they let go. A dollar a box would get none. Had I 

 obtained a sample, I should have forwarded it to Prof. Cook. 



I may be wrong, but I do not " go much " on that analysis 



as made by Dr. Wormley. I do not think him practical 

 enough to analyze honey so as to do justice to the bees. Do 

 any of our bee-keepers know of similar cases ? If so, let us 

 have it talked over ; it will be of far more benefit than to know 

 whether there will be non-swarming bees, or some other things 

 that are sometimes discussed in our papers. 



Trenton, N. J. Geo. B. Hurley. 



[The letter from Dr. Elmer, referred to by Mr. Hurley in 

 the foregoing, reads as follows : — Ed.] 



Mr. Geo. B. Hurley— .Vy D&ir Sir: — In reply to your 

 request for the symptoms of the poisoning by honey in the 

 cases of Mr. and Mrs. John S. Chambers, as alluded to in the 

 American Bee Journal of Dec. 28, 1895, 1 would make the 

 following satement : 



They were the only two persons who partook of the 

 honey. All the rest of the family, and the servants, ate of 

 each of the other articles served at breakfast, and were not in 

 the least affected. Mr. and Mrs. Chambers took but a small 

 quantity, yet each noticed a peculiar, pungent taste in the 

 comb as soon as it passed their lips. In 15 or 20 minutes 

 afterward, Mrs. C. was taken with nausea, abdominal pain 

 and vomiting, soon followed by loss of consciousness, coldness 

 of extremities, feebly acting heart, and complete collapse. 

 While ministering to her, Mr. Chambers, who had also experi- 

 enced the initiatory symptoms of pain and nausea, sud- 

 denly exclaimed, 'I cannot see !" and soon sank in a state of 

 syncope to the floor. 



In each case the symptoms were then similar. Retching, 

 vomiting, purging, acute gastric and abdominal pains and 

 cramps continued for some hours, with surface coldness, 

 deadly pallor, delirium, and the general symptoms of collapse. 

 No pulse could be detected at Mr. C.'s wrists for two hours, 

 and the heart-sounds were extremely feeble and irregular — as 

 they were also in Mrs. C, though her pulse was not entirely 

 lost, yet for an hour or more was scarcely discernible. 



By the aid of restoratives, consciousness returned to Mrs. 

 C. in about three hours, but the husband was not fully himself 

 for 19 hours — until 4 o'clock the next morning — and had no 

 recollection of anything that transpired in the interim, al- 

 though he had at times conversed with the nurse and myself 

 during the afternoon and night. 



The treatment consisted of brandy and hot drinks, swap- 

 isms, and external applications of heat, hypodermatic injec- 

 tions of morphia for pain — and of digitaline, until reaction 

 was assured ; then rest, quiet, and a general supporting plan 

 was adopted. 



Recovery took place gradually, and without any eventful 

 symptoms, though the restoration to strength was very slow. 



An analysis of the remaining honey was made by Theo. 

 G. Wormley — Professor of Chemistry in the University of 

 Pennsylvania — who states : 



"Several experiments upon dogs, made in connection with 

 Prof. Reichert, have shown that the honey contains a most 

 prompt and potent poison, producing within a few minutes 

 violent vomiting, followed by purging, great prostration, con- 

 vulsions, coma and death within a few hours. It would ap- 

 pear that the poison is present chiefly in the solid portions of 

 the honey. 



" The symptoms showed in your cases very strongly re- 

 sembled those observed in several reported cases of honey 

 poisoning, in which the poisoning was attributed to honey 

 collected from the Kalmia latifolia or Mountain laurel, which, 

 I understand, is very abundant in your State. Although the 

 plant has long been known to possess poisonous properties, 

 yet repeated examinations, by different chemists, have thus 

 far failed to separate the poisonous principle, or determine its 

 chemical properties. 



" It may be some relief to the family to know that the 

 poison was a substance inherent in the honey, and not to a 

 substance added thereto maliciously or by accident. From my 

 personal interest in the matter, I will continue the examina- 

 tion of the honey, and make every endeavor to separate the 

 poisonous principle." 



Trusting that this brief account may be of some service to 

 you, I remain. Yours very truly, 



Trenton, N. J., Jan. 15, 1896. W. Elmer. 



[We wish to thank Mr. Hurley, and also Dr. Elmer, for 

 their excellent letters. They are particularly interesting, as 

 they come direct from the place where the honey-poisoning 

 occurred, that has stirred up all the discussion on the subject 

 which has appeared lately in the Bee Journal. We hardly 

 think that the instances of poisoning from eating honey are 

 sufficiently numerous, or serve to cause any great uneasiness 

 among producers or consumers of this delicious sweet. At 

 any rate, if the supposed poison was found only in the honey- 

 comb, it will cause more extracted honey to be eaten. — Ed.] 



