THE AMERICAN APICULTURIST. 



85 



The well-known and very expert 

 Schoufeld examined them and 

 proved that copulation had actual- 

 ly taken place and that it was 

 surely a worker bee and not a small 

 or imperfect queen with which the 

 drone had mated, because : 1. The 

 hind legs were shorter as is the case 

 with the smallest queens and pro- 

 vided with the pollen baskets which 

 are missing in the queens. 2. The 

 head was absolutely that of a work- 

 er bee. 3. The sting which was 

 present was that of a worker. 4. 

 The ovaries were undeveloped as 

 is the case with worker bees. 5. A 

 seminal vessel was nowhere to be 

 found. 6. The honey stomach and 

 the orifice which is to be found in 

 it are different in the queen from 

 that of the working bee and 

 showed here the nature of the lat- 

 ter. 7. Finally, the pollen right 

 from the great-gut proved that here 

 was actually a working bee. 



Of course this observation proves 

 nothing against the Dzierzon theo- 

 ry or parthenogenesis, as an im- 

 pregnation of the worker bee is 

 impossible, but goes to show that 

 bees before they commence to lay 

 drone eggs can and do become 

 amorous. In Germany, of course, 

 this observation has called forth 

 lively interest and a great inter- 

 change of opinion. 



Selma, Texas. 



WHOSE HAT (QUESTION 

 DEPARTMENT) IS IT? 



Evidently the editor of the A. 

 B. J. does not enjoy being compli- 



mented on the improved appear- 

 ance he makes in Mr. Locke's hat. 

 It is so much better than his old 

 one that we are all glad that, before 

 he attended the World's Fair, he 

 got a new hat from "down east." 

 Strange to say he declares it is not 

 Mr. Locke's hat at all but an old 

 one of his own and that he can 

 prove that he wore it once at so 

 early a date as May, 1879. He has 

 not worn it since until quite recent- 

 ly because he has been taking a nap 

 (Rip Van Winkle) and he does not 

 wear a hat when he is asleep. 

 Furthermore, while he was asleep, 

 Locke stole it and made such a 

 commotion with it as to awake him. 

 However he won't complain or 

 make any fuss about an old hat if 

 nobody will accuse him of taking 

 Locke's new one. It is our duty 

 to remind him, however, that the 

 punishment, if not the guilt, is 

 greater for taking a new hat than 

 for taking an old one. I had hoped 

 for an amicable settlement, until 

 just now my eye chanced to rest on 

 an editorial note in Gleanings that 

 evidently means war (civil I hope). 

 As I understand it, he accuses both 

 parties of being moral pirates or 

 at least they are guilty of not tak- 

 ing out "moral patents." He says 

 the hat they have been wearing 

 between them is one worn by the 

 editor of the Beekeeper's Instruc- 

 tor in 1882. Now I find on taking 

 measurements that the hat worn 

 once by Newman in 1879 and worn 

 once by Thomas in 1882 is entirely 

 too small for the editor of this 

 journal, therefore, I conclude Locke 

 must have a new one. Who shall 



