146 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



nated eggs producing living drones by miracle, 

 even now, if He would. 



That the drone is a living creature — that all 

 life is derived from the giver of all life, and that 

 all living things begin to die as soon as they com- 

 mence to live, are truths consistent with religion, 

 pliilosophv, reason, and common sense; and he 

 who would consistently fulfil his destiny will 

 not blindly cling to one of these God-given bles- 

 sings to the exclusion of all the rest — will not 

 doggedly and dogmatically insist that nature has 

 made one exceptional law for the bee hive, 

 another exceptional law for the aut hill, and 

 another for the butterfly, simply because he can- 

 not penetrate the veil of infinity by means of the 

 microscope. Is therefore a mathematical pro- 

 blem unsolvable because I cannot solve itV I 

 must, for rea -ons like these, be excused for be- 

 lieving that there can be no finite animal life 

 without finite animal impregnation, either direct 

 or indirect, and that my faith in the beautiful 

 and harmonious concatenation of nature is more 

 powerful than the magnifying lens. 



As the course of transformation by which al- 

 bumen is converted into the various bodily tis- 

 su-es, has not yet been traced with anything like 

 certainty, we need not wonder that we cannot 

 trace with scrupulous exactitude the course of 

 genetic perpetuation of life in the queen's eggs 

 anterior to their being individually endued with 

 a higher potency of fertility by means of the 

 theca seminalis, and hence we must rest satis- 

 fied for the present with the logical deduction 

 that if man can artificially impregnate an unira- 

 pregnated egg to produce a worker, the workers 

 like^vise can impregnate the egg in the royal cell 

 to eflect the genetic perpetuation of life in the 

 queen's eggs anterior to their passing the dis- 

 charge pipe of the spermatheca. 



Yes, yes, I understand you, says some doubt- 

 ing Thomas, and if you can discover to me liv- 

 ing spermatozoids in the royal cell at any time, 

 I must confess the consistency of your theory. 

 Well, sir, as I have never seen any of these 

 things there myself, unless it be that little wet 

 speck upon which the royal egg is placed, I 

 ought perhaps to modify my assertion by saying 

 that I could see no living spermatozoids in the 

 cell either, when Dr. Donhoft' raised his worker 

 larva from the drone egg. and that I could never 

 succeed to investigate with the microscope the 

 ligula of each individual bee as it tended the 

 royal nursling in its' cradle. Two bushels of 

 gypsum to an acre of well set clover lay will 

 increase its yield three and fourfold, if applied 

 at the right time, and yet the agricultural chemist 

 would not presume to find an additional trace 

 of sulphuric acid in this soil at analysis. 



Why, my dear si-r, I do not travel this new 

 road alone. Here I meet the learned Huber, Avho 

 could conceive that workers raised in proximity 

 to royal cells may have received some royal jelly 

 and thus become fertilized; there the penetrating 

 Uzierzon could assent to this reasonal)le view, 

 and further on the liberal Berlepsch could en- 

 dorse the opinion of both. Still, four travellers 

 may follow the same road and yet at its terminus, 

 each may tell you a different story. I differ in 

 my story only in this with them, that I attribute 

 the fertilUv of fertile workers to their pabulum 



of workei: eggs and spermatozoids ab initio, 

 whilst they attribute it to royal jelly. They 

 commit the egregious error of attributing to the 

 alimentary functions of the bee, that which, ac- 

 cording to reason, philosophy, and anatomical 

 research elsewhere is attributable only to the 

 organs of procreation, whether perfectly or im- 

 perfectly developed. 



Drone egg-laying workers, according to my 

 theory, originate Avhen the bees, on suddenly 

 being deprived of their queen, are prompted to 

 commence numerous queen cells. The eggs in 

 worker's cells chosen to be transformed into 

 queens, are dosed simultaneously with the in- 

 cipient transformetion of the cells with worker 

 eggs, as above explained. A majority of these 

 intended royal eggs and cells are, on further con- 

 sideration, abandoned by the bees, but the eggs 

 so dosed will ultimately hatch into drone-laying 

 workers. 



This explains the fact that in colonies that 

 have no queens, but have worker eggs, unsealed 

 larvte, or larvae in royal cells, no drone eggs are 

 laid. It also explains that other indisputable 

 fact that drone eggs are never found in queenless 

 colonies before the lapse of three weeks after the 

 loss or removal of the quee:i. 



If any person pretends to lia.ve evidence on 

 hand to disprove these two facts, let him recon- 

 sider it before publicly committing himself; for 

 all such evidence is delusive — in short, it is not 

 true. 



On page 48, volume 3, American Bee Jour- 

 nal, Dzierzon substantially says: "I am fully 

 persuaded that when the egg is once laid no sub- 

 sequent artificial impregnation can efll^ct a 

 change, because it has then already lost all ca> 

 pacity for impregnation, as the micropjde be 

 comes immediately closed and the entrance oC 

 spermatozofe is forever barred." Indeed! Why, 

 my dear sir, lacteals are always created without 

 any micropyles or small holes where they come 

 in contact with the intestinal cavity — the lacteal 

 extremities are wet — wet repels oil, ergo, the 

 entrance of oil through the wet membr.-mes of 

 the lacteals is "forever barred," and youf asser- 

 tion as above quoted must be considered final. 

 Now this reasoning, it will be admitted, is just 

 as logical as Dzierzqn's, and moreover it is like 

 it not w^orth anything, for oil does enter the lac- 

 teal extremities; but how it enters there, despite 

 of seeming impossibilities, is none of my business 

 to explain in this connection. The microscope 

 says it is there, whether Mr. Dzierzon says so 

 or not. 



So much as to Rev. Dzierzou's assertion. And 

 if my explanation of parthenogenesis cannot 

 stand, I shall have at least the satisfaction of 

 knowing myself not alone in the wrong. W e'll 

 go" down together. 



But lo! here comes my friend Thomas, to in- 

 form me that I believe in absorption and circu- 

 lation too. Well, sir, as you like it. Call it ab- 

 sorption or impregnation, only please excuse me 

 for believing in absorption that bears Vv^ith it the 

 semblance at least of probability; for by my 

 theory I can consistent^' account for th(> impurity 

 of Italian queens \Viien reared artificially— can 

 account for crippled queens artificially reared— 

 can account for the multiform appearance of 



