Vol. XVII, 



JANUARY, IQ07. 



No. I. 



THE EAGERLY INDUSTRIOUS BEE (?). 



Latham and Miller Lock Horns in Defence of Their Opinions 

 Involving Fine Points. 



ALLEN LATHAM. 



ON PAGE 235 Mr. Arthur C. Mil- 

 ler replies to my criticism of 

 what he ofifered on page 184 

 about drone-comb-building. Yes, Mr. 

 Miller did most courteously submit 

 his reply to me, and I readily assented 

 to its being printed, for who would 

 not after reading the reply? I could 

 confidently rest my case here, feeling 

 assured that Time with its increased 

 store of bee-lore would vindicate the 

 position which I still hold, not having 

 the least consciousness that Mr. Mil- 

 ler has driven me from it. 



But in his vain search for argu- 

 ments to support his untenable posi- 

 tion Mr. Miller gets off the track and 

 proceeds to slander most basely our 

 beloved and respected worker-bee. I 

 cannot refrain from coming to the 

 defence of the bee; and here again 

 I find myself compelled to take issue 

 squarely against Mr. Miller, whose 

 close study of the bee and whose vari- 

 ous contributions to bee-literature 

 have on more than one occasion pro- 

 voked in me only admiration. Mr. 



Miller is, however, human, and like 

 the rest of us does err once in a while. 



The first reading of the sentence, 

 ■'In the aggregate the bees of a colony 

 accomplish much, but individually the 

 bee is the personification of laziness," 

 caused a strange mixture of emotions. 

 The slander in the statement hurt not 

 a little, while the remarkable logic 

 amused. How a company of personi- 

 fications of laziness can accomplish 

 much is beyond my powers as a 

 logician to comprehend. 



The fact would seem to be — and let 

 me say that I am in the dark some- 

 what here — that a few students of bee- 

 lore undertook to keep tabs on some 

 worker-bees, and, finding much ap- 

 parent idleness, jumped at extreme 

 conclusions. Thus did Anthony Trol- 

 lope write once upon a time about 

 Americans. Thus today do most 

 Americans form erroneous ideas about 

 Chinese, basing their conclusions up- 

 on a casual acquaintance with one or 

 two washee-washee men. 



When a number of keen and tried 



