THE JIMERICSEN BEE JOURNKEr. 



647 



sioned with pure sugar-caudy for 20 

 days ; the queen was in good health, 

 but some of the workers were dis- 

 tressed with diarrliea, and discharged 

 as bhvck and filthy-looking matter as I 

 c'er saw in the winter season ; but 

 perhaps I sliould beg the pardon of 

 our pollen-lheorists, eh ? — G. W. Dkm- 



AREE. 



I do not know, as so much depends 

 upon surrounding conditions. Some- 

 times it is but a few days, and at other 

 times a month or more, seemingly. — 

 James Heddon. 



That depends somewhat upon the 

 size of the queen- cage, the number of 

 worker-bees with the queen, the care 

 with which they are put up, and the 

 weather. Queen-bees have crossed 

 the ocean, were a month on the way, 

 and arrived safely. — Mrs. L.Haurison. 



I sent one to Texas, which then 

 went to Georgia, then to Massachu- 

 setts, and then to Kentucky — en route 

 about three or four weeks, with the 

 queen and most of the workers all 

 right at the end of the journej-. I be- 

 lieve tliat with good food, they could 

 go much further and a longer dis- 

 tance. — A. J. Cook. 



That depends. In very hot, dry 

 weather, they will not bear confine- 

 ment ay long as they will when the 

 temperature is cooler and more pleas- 

 ant. I have mailed queens success- 

 fullj' when they have been confined in 

 the cage for 30 days. — J. P. H. Brow-n. 



Several 3-carsago T sent some queens 

 to Scotland, which arrived in perfect 

 order, after a confinement of ItJ dajs. 

 I also sent some to New Zealand, 

 which were en route 35 days ; all were 

 dead wlien they arrived but the queen, 

 and she died soon afterward. I prefer 

 not to send (jneens by mail where it is 

 necessary for them to be confined 

 more than 10 to 14 days. — G. M. Doo- 



LITTLE. 



They will stand it from 10 to 15 

 days, but though they have stood it for 

 a much longer time, it is best not to 

 presume too much upon what might be 

 tlie result of a longer confinement. 

 We have sent them to Australia, and 

 they were in good condition, but they 

 were specially prepared with extra 

 fiHid, more room than usual, and 

 ]ili'Mty of ventilation. Some we have 

 1. ccived dead, though only confined 

 for 3 or 4 days. — The Editor. 



Prang's National Flower is the title of a 

 iiliful piimphlet wliic-li contains two coiorcd 

 L juaics of tho twi> most popular candidates for 

 Miection as tlio Nalionul Flower of Auieriea. 

 It also has two poems, and a postal eard 

 addressed to Messrs. L. Prang & Co., Boston. 

 Mass., with a vote to bo filled up for the 

 selection of a National flower. The pamphlet 

 costs 25 cents, and can be obtained at this 

 office. 



FACTS. 



Further Di§ciis§ioii of tlie Sub- 

 ject «>r Digested IVeclar. 



Wrllten for the American Bee Journal 

 BY PROF. A. J. COOK. 



I am surprised and pained to read 

 the editorial on page 611. I quite 

 agree with the editor, that "Ridicule is 

 not argument — neither are arrogant 

 assertions and contemptuous epithets 

 conclusive evidence." If I have ever, 

 anywhere, used ridicule, arrogance, 

 tyranny, or epithets, I truly beg pardon. 

 1 despise all such, and have ever tried 

 to avoid them as I would poison. 1 

 did try to express forcibly my displeas- 

 ure and opposition to the expression of 

 opinions on subjects that writers had 

 not investgated ; especially where they 

 taught in opposition to well-settled 

 facts. 



Some 3'ears ago the great Agassiz 

 talked of bees, and uttered absurdities 

 that made bee-keepers laugh. He 

 merited rebuke, and received it. Prof. 

 Wiley did the same thing, and the 

 editor of the Aekican Bee Journal 

 fairly " roasted" him. I always felt 

 that the editor was pardonable. When 

 a man writes of what he has not in- 

 vestigated, and so knows not the truth, 

 and essays to teach others, he deserves 

 severe reproof. The editor certainly 

 agrees with me in this, or, he would 

 not have written as he has in the 

 Wiley matter. 



Regarding Dr. McKinney's reply : I 

 make no complaint of stjle ; 1 think 

 he is courteous and fair to me ; but not 

 to. himself or truth. 



I am very glad that the Doctor says 

 that honey and nectar are difl'erent. So 

 far, good. But when the Doctor 

 teaches that heat will change cane- 

 sugar to glucose, he is far out of the 

 way. Why ! it is heat and evaporation 

 that prepares our cane-sugar from 

 beets, cane, and maple sap. Unless 

 wn add acid, such evaporation never 

 changes the sugar. If concentration 

 b}' heat changed cane-sugar to glucose, 

 then our sugar factories and maple 

 bushes would be glucose factories. 

 This is entirely an error. 



I believe that no scientific authority 

 teaches other than that nectar is cane- 

 sugar, and honey, for the most part, 

 reducible sugar. Now there are two 

 ways that the cane-sugar can be 

 changed to honey — either by boiling 

 vvitli an acid, or by animal ferment. 

 Bees certainly work this change. They 

 cannot do it in the first way, therefore 

 tlicy must do it in the second. 



Again, bees have four large glands 

 which empty their product right at the 

 base of the tongue. Here, then, is a 

 digestive li(|uid in rich abundance, that 

 is poured out just where tho honey en- 

 ters. I have not the least ilotlbt but 

 tliat this is the ferment lliat digests the 

 nectar. We Dositively know tliat tlie 

 nectar is digested, as is easily tested. 

 Here is the juice, emptying just where 

 it would be needed. 



I believe that these facts are demon- 

 strated : Honej' is partially, or com- 

 pletely, digested nectar. The bees 

 work this digestion. I have no doubt 

 but that the secretion from the lower 

 head, and thoracic, glands, furnish the 

 ferment that eU'ects this digestion. A 

 diluted .solution of any sugar is likely, 

 if ke])t warm, to ferment or sour. 

 Thus the sap sours in the spring, and 

 the presence of the acid changes the 

 cane-sugar when we boil it, to glucose, 

 and so ruins our syrup or sugar. In 

 the same way diluted honey will sour. 

 It is not that the honey is not digested 

 — "the bees dyspeptic" — but the 

 diluted honey not ripened — is likely, 

 under the right circumstances, to sour. 

 Thus we wish to have thick, heavy 

 honey, so that it may not ferment. 



How quickly maple sap sours. It 

 takes only a few hours. This is not 

 true with the syrup. The syrup may 

 be kept for months, and not ferment. 

 This is just the case with honey. Thin 

 honey ferments readily ; ripe honey- 

 will keep for years. 



Agricultural College, Mich. 



[To give pain to a friend, causes us 

 sorrow. Our arguments were only 

 intended to show that editors should 

 not exclude courteous discussion, and 

 thereby prevent all advancement — and, 

 also, to prove that putting such articles 

 into the waste-basket, would not dis- 

 prove the arguments sought to be ad- 

 vanced. We stated that editors should 

 not play the "tyrant" — not professors ! 



We well knew that Prof. Cook went 

 further than he intended, in his article 

 in Gleanings, and that is why we 

 deprecated the fact that the Professor 

 should have sccminyly invoked the aid 

 of ridicule, etc. We surmised rightly 

 that, upon second thought, he would 

 gladly modify the language in some 

 particulars. 



The "Wiley matter" bears no com- 

 parison to the present discussion. 

 That was a wilful misrepresentation, 

 made in order to cause a sensation, ami 

 one that has injured the pursuit ! 



The discussion of the " digested 

 nectar" theory, is a harmless dispute 



