T'Ml^' MimMMlCm.'H MMM JQ'lXf^If^KlL. 



309 



he had wittingly, or unwittingly, done the 

 whole fraternity of bee keepers. But Prof. 

 Wiley failed to do so, so far as the public 

 knows. He neglected — I may safely say 

 refused— to make the (nnrnilc Jionnrablc. 

 The apiarists became incensed, indignant, 

 and demanded proof of his assertion or a 

 retractiou. The Professor of science vouch- 

 safed neither the one nor the other. 



Finally, after years had elapsed, being 

 still hotly pursued by the apiarists and 

 bee-periodicals, especially the Ameuic.\n 

 Bee Journal, Prof. Wilej' did manage to 

 makeau explanation or "statement;" which, 

 however, in no way improved his position 

 before the public either as an honorable 

 man or a professor of science. About 7 

 years after uttering the slander to the 

 world, he speaks, and makes this astound- 

 ing admission: 



" At the time, I repeated this stanement 

 more in the light of a pleasantry than as a 

 commercial reality, for I did not believe 

 that it was possible commercially to imitate 

 the comb." (Letter dated Washington, D. 

 C, May 29, 1888, addressed to W. M. 

 Evans, and published in the American Bee 

 JovKN-AL of June 13, 1888.) 



In this attempted justification of himself. 

 Prof. Wiley says that he had heard from a 

 friend of his (now deceased), that comb 

 honey was manufactured in Boston as 

 stated above. On the strength of that, and 

 alone, he made the deliberate assertion 

 which I have quoteed from the Popular 

 Science Monthly. 



Now, after reading and re-reading the 

 context in the Popular tjrlcnev Monthly 

 article, I find not a shadow of evidence llhat 

 this statement was meant for a fiction and 

 not for a fact. It is given seriously and 

 deliberately, along with other alleged 

 scientific facts, with no intimation or indi- 

 cation whatever of its spurious character. 



The readers (and no doubt the publish- 

 ers) of the Popular Science Monthly ac- 

 cepted the statement in good faith as a 

 fact. The newspapers, of course, accepted 

 it as true from so respectable an authority 

 as the Popular Science Monthly, and even 

 the eneyclopsedias finally took it in. In- 

 deed, nobody, it seems, took it as a ficti- 

 tious "pleasantry," or even dreamed it 

 was meant for one, till the exgencies of the 

 case required such a construction (or mis- 

 construction) from the author himself. 



If it really was meant as a harmless 

 scientific squib, with no malice prepense, 

 the question arises, How is it that the Pro- 

 fessor neglected to set the matter right 

 when he found that everj-body was taking 

 his ,ioke seriously, to the great detriment 

 of an important industry, and the calumni- 

 ous aspersion of honest honey-producers? 



THE WORKEK-BEE THEORT. 



Another example of spurious science is 

 now before me. The Medical Sta)idardior 

 June, 1S89, contains a leading article on 

 Kmbryology, by a learned New York doc- 

 tor, in which we are gravely informed that a 

 " worker-bee is a highly organized creature, 

 with a well-developed brain, wonderful 

 sense-organs, intricate muscular apparatus, 

 and yet it is an oflispring of an unimpreg- 

 nated queen-bee." 



Now, this is all well put and quite true, 

 excej-tt the last clause, which is ,1ust the 

 opposite of the truth. Any apiarian 

 specialist could have told the doctor that 

 while it is true that the virgin queen-bee 

 lays eggs which produce drones or males, 

 she never deposits eggs which produce 

 females — that is, workers and queens — 

 until after she is impregnated by the 

 drone. Hence, the worker-bee is not " an 

 offspring of an unimpregnated queen-bee." 



While it would be obviously unfair and 

 unreasonable to hold the Monthly morally 

 responsible for the specimen of wily science 



and its results to which this article refers, 

 it is, perhaps, not entirely free from blame 

 in allowing the matter to rest uncorrected 

 so long. I take the liberty of here suggest- 

 ing to publishers of encyclopedias and 

 scientific works, the wisdom of first sub- 

 mitting doubtful points and dubious asser- 

 tions, made by meu outside their sjjecial 

 departments, to practical men in such 

 departments, whether the latter be learned 

 or unlearned, for the knowledge of an 

 unlearned man touching his own particular 

 line of business (even the science of it) may 

 exceed that of the scientist both in accuracy 

 and extent. Such a course would often 

 save the specialist from humiliation, and 

 spare the pulic the infliction of some very 

 queer science, which, not infrequently, fails 

 to dovetail with everyday facts. 



In a letter from Mr. Allen Pringle, just 

 received, he comments upon the above 

 article and its publication in the Popular 

 Science Monthly as follows : 



The article came into existence in this 

 way: About 8 j'ears ago Prof. Wiley con- 

 tributed an article to the Monthly on 

 " Glucose and Grape Sugar," in which he 

 slandered every bee-keeper in the world. 

 A few months ago I was invited by the 

 editor of the Popular Science Monthly to 

 contribute an article to its pages dealing 

 with Prof. Wiley's misrepresentations, he 

 (the editor) having but recently become 

 aware that Prof. Wiley's article had done 

 injury to American bee-culture, and being 

 willing and anxious, as soon as so enlight- 

 ened, that the error should be exposed and 

 refuted through the same medium of its 

 original promulgation. 



This was highly creditable and honorable 

 on the part of the Monthly, and stands in 

 unpleasant contrast with the conduct of 

 the author of the mischief when his error 

 and its baneful effects were pointed out to 

 him and urged upon him time and again. 



Of course I responded to this appeal on 

 the first opportunity ; but, as is the case with 

 most magazines of this class, pressure of 

 matter delayed the appearance of this 

 article for a few months. But it is now 

 published, and it remains to be seen 

 whether Prof. Wiley will still make the 

 amende honorable, so far as hecan, through 

 the same medium. Allen Pkingle. 



Selby, Out., April 36, 1890. 



Replies. 



Swarms Dceampiiig After Being 

 Hived. 



Written for the American Dee Journal 



QuEKV 706. — Are new swarms that are 

 hived on the old stand, more liable to 

 decamp than if placed in a new location? 

 The only swarm that I ever placed on the 

 old stand, left the next day. — New York. 



No, sir. — J. P. H. Brown. 



I think so. — Eugene Secor. 



An experience of 18 years says, "No." — 

 Ct. M. Doolittle. 



I do not think that it makes any differ- 

 ence. — A. J. Cook. 



No, I do not think that has anything to 

 do with it. — H. D. Cutting. 



I sometimes think that they are, but I do 

 not know. — R. L. Taylor. 



I do not know as they are. I always hive 

 swarms that way, and never had one leave. 

 —A. B. Mason. 



I think not; but I have not tried it often 

 enough to give a positive answer.— Mrs. L. 

 Harrison. 



I believe that they have a little aversion 

 to the old stand, though I am not sure.— J. 

 M. Hambaugu. 



No. I have never had one to come out 

 after being so hived. My bees never 

 swarm out after being hived. — M. Ma his. 



We have never seen a swarm leave the 

 old stand, but we presume they may, if 

 they have an unfertilized queen. — Dadant 

 & Son. 



No. I have hived all swarms on the old 

 stands, and very seldom lost any. Years 

 ago, when I placed the swarms on new 

 stands, I lost lots of them. — C. H. Dibbern. 



I do not think that it will make any dif- 

 ference; at least, 1 have not found that it 

 did in my own exjierience. Decamping is 

 the exception to the rule, and does not 

 seem to be governed by any rule whatever. 

 —J. E. Pond. 



I do not know that there is any ; I should 

 think there might be less danger if put in an 

 entirely new place, where the scouts could 

 not find them.— C. C. Miller. 



No; your swarm left from some other 

 reason. I have practiced this system a 

 gi'eat deal, and do not recollect of ever 

 having a swarm decamp, when properly 

 hived in this manner. — Will M. Barnu.m. 



No. Why should you thinks so, when 

 you never tried but one* "One swallow 

 does not make a summer," nor one experi- 

 ment, and, many times, half a dozen on 

 some points tell nothing definite. — James 

 Hbhdon. 



I have hived a great many swarms on 

 the old stand, and never had one decamp ; 

 but I have had swarms attempt to decamp, 

 that were placed ui^on a new stand in the 

 hot sun. Excessive heat in the hive seems 

 to be the principal cause of absconding 

 swarms after hiving. — G. L. Tinker. 



I think not ; in fact, I think not half as 

 likely to. I have hived all my swarms on 

 the " old stand " for several years, and not 

 one swarm has deserted. There is once in 

 awhile — perhaps once in ten years — a sea- 

 son that produces chronic decampation. 

 There is a cause for such a state of things, 

 or rather causes, but I cannot discuss them 

 here for want of space. It is enough to 

 say that scarcity of pollen may induce bees 

 to decamp for other quarters, and the dis- 

 turbed state of two or more queens with 

 the swarm will break them up in many 

 cases. The latter is the most fruitful cause 

 of desertion.— G. W. Demaree. 



We do not think that it makes any differ- 

 ence ; superstition would be the only ex- 

 cuse for thinking that there was any differ- 

 ence. — TnE Editor. 



Propolis or Bee-GIne on Hauds. 



— In manipulating the frames, the hands of 

 the operator become quite sticky and 

 gummy, and to remove this disagreeable 

 matter readily is very desirable. Soapine 

 is highly recommended for this purpose. It 

 is a preparation of sal-soda and dried soap, 

 and can be secured at nearly all grocery- 

 stores at 5 cents per package, which will 

 last along time, if kept dry. It is used thus: 

 Take some warm soft water, and after 

 wetting the hands, rub on a little soap, then 

 pour a little of the powder into the palm of 

 the hands and work them well together ; 

 this will soften the hard lumps of propolis, 

 and will dissolve the thinner portions, 

 which are then easily rinsed off. 



