Aug. 31), 1900. 



AMERICAN BEE [OURNAi 



549 



i Contributed Articles. ^ 



A Review of Bee-Books— " Lang-stroth Revised." 



BY PKOl'. A. J. COOK. 



IT is 1113' purpose in a series of articles for the American 

 Bee Journal to comment upon some of our bee-bo(jl<s, 

 three of which I have carefully read during the past few 

 months. I write in the spirit of most friendly criticism. I 

 am proud of all the works. I well may be proud of them, 

 for each one is not only a credit to the author and the art of 

 bee-keeping, but also to the great world of book-making. 

 Each is genuine and honest ; and each shows the results of 

 hard, persistent effort to benefit the people for whom the 

 work was written. When any man writes a book with 

 true, unselfish, disinterested purpose, aiming to benefit, re- 

 fine and exalt those for whom he writes, well may we call 

 such a man a philanthropist. He is adding another sheaf 

 to the great garner of true, honest work, and, therefore, 

 blesses the world. 



The above thoughts were called forth by each of the 

 three books which it has been my pleasure and my great 

 profit to read in these last %veeks, and which I now propose 

 to review for the readers of our excellent American Bee 

 Journal. The three books in the order in which they were 

 read, and in which I shall review them are, " Dadant's 

 Langstroth," Root's " A B C of Bee-Culture," and Cowan's 

 ■' The Honey-Bee." 



"LANGSTROTH ON THE HONEY-BEE.'' 



It is with peculiar pleasure that I studied this master- 

 piece of bee-literature. It brought so vividly to mind the 

 delights which came to me over a third of a century ago 

 when I read that classic, not only in the presentation of the 

 art side, but also in the revelation of the processes of scieti- 

 tific discovery — " Langstroth on the Honey-Bee." 



Langstroth combined in himself that happiest trio of 

 possessions — genius, rich culture, and, best of all, a pure, 



Rev. L. /,. Langstroth. 



refined heart. Combine with these a masterful gift of lan- 

 guage, and surely we have a rare specimen of manhood. 

 All that was our dear friend Langstroth. Mr. Dadant has 

 wisely left untouch! those parts of the original work where 

 new discoveries in art and science did not require a new 

 cast. It has"always been a wonder to me, as I have gone I 



over the eloquent paragraphs of Langstroth's great classic, 

 how it was possible for any man tO'divine so many of the 

 hidden facts of both science and practice, as did our genial, 

 kindly old friend whose memory is so dear. to every Ameri- 

 can bee-keeper. This shows that he was agenius. A grad- 

 uate of Yale College, he possest the rare culture which is 

 every genius' helpmeet. As a man, absolutely honest, and 

 one who thought no evil, he was so guileless that others of 

 very different mold were quick to take advantage of his 

 very loveliness. The conduit of some others toward Mr. 

 Langstroth furnishes the darkest page in all the great vol- 

 ume of American apiculture. I believe such treatment to- 

 day would be impossible, (iod be praised that the world is 

 moving so rapidly towards higher ideals and better lives. 



Mr. Dadant, as one of the ablest bee-keepers of the 

 United States, and one conversant with the bee-literature of 

 the world, was, without doubt, just the person to undertake 

 this important work. I doubt if he has a rival in his ability 

 in the direction of extracted honey and the production and 

 use of comb foundation. Thus, as we should expect, wher- 

 ever he has toiicht the pages to bring the work into line 

 with the best modern practice and knowledge, we are not 

 pained by any serious contrast, as we might well expect 

 to be. 



It is to be regreted that he gives Cheshire credit for 

 illustrations which the latter took without credit from such 

 authors as Schiemenz, Wolff, etc. But, of course, he can 

 not be blamed for this. He also gives Cheshire credit for 

 ideas which the latter also plagiarized. A copyist is always 

 likely to run into error, especially a copyist who gives no 

 credit. It is always dangerous to follow such an one. Mr. 

 Dadant could not know regarding this, and so is not blam- 

 able for the blemishes. It seems questionable to criticise 

 so excellent a book, but the mistakes as I have seen them 

 are so few that I am bold to do so. 



In a note on page 14, taken from the great Claude Ber- 

 nard, I think there is plainly an error. "If you deprive a 

 bird, a pigeon, for instance, of its cerebral lobe it will be 

 deprived of its instinct, j'et it will live if you stuff it with 

 food. Furthermore, its brain will eventually be renewed, 

 thus bringing back all the uses of its senses." As I under- 

 stand, instinctive actions are such as take place independ- 

 ent of the cerebrum. Walking after one isstarted is almost 

 wholly instinctive. We do it without thought. The cere- 

 brum pla3's no part. The piano-player acquires ability so 

 that after commencing to play a piece the fingers run on 

 and the person may talk or sing something else. I have 

 heard instinct called " frozen habit." We cut a frog's head 

 oft", throw the body into the water, and it swims almost as 

 well as before the decapitation. These are purely reflex 

 acts, and I think are akin to what we call instinct. The 

 cerebrum, of course, takes no part. I supposed that the 

 nerve-cells that were the center of instinctive actions were 

 largely, if not wholly, outside of the cerebrum ; the latter 

 is the great center of intelligent action. Again, I did not 

 suppose that brain tissue once lost was restored. I had 

 thought that a fatty substance replaced it. We know that 

 the function comes back, and so are led to believe that a 

 part of the brain, upon occasion, may do the work pre- 

 viously done by quite another part. I am surprised that 

 Bernard wrote the above paragraph. I do not believe he 

 would have done so in the latter part of his life. 



On page 15 the glands that appear like a string of 

 onions are referred to as the upper head-glands. I remem- 

 ber them as lower than the other glands, and would call 

 them the lower head-glands. 



On page lb Cheshire and others are quoted as showing 

 that the secretions of these glands is the food of the larv«, 

 queen, etc. We now know positively that this is not true. 

 The food of the larva?, etc., is Jdigested and regurgitated by 

 the nurse-bees, and the secretion is a digestive fluid. Even 

 Schiemenz (from whom so much of Cheshire is taken) made 

 this mistake. By mixing finely ground charcoal with honey 

 I have found that it appears in the brood-cells. This 

 demonstrates that the nurse- bees digest the larval food. 



On page 17 we read that the food eaten by the queen is 

 digested and assimilated by the bees for her use. Of course, 

 this is a wrong use of the word assimilated. To assimilate 

 is to convert into tissue. It may be defined in some of the 

 dictionaries as a synonym with digestion ; but it is not so 

 used in our physiologies. It is rather synonymous with 

 constructive metabolism or anabolism. 



On the same page (17), in speaking of the racemose 

 glands, the other glands of the head and those of the thorax, 

 it is stated that the saliva produced from them helps the 

 digestion, changes chemical conditions of nectar, helps to 

 knead the scales of wax, and perhaps the propolis. The 



