18 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[July, 



fied, but this is contrary to the results of 

 analyses. Besides some persons have said that 

 some insects can provoke the production of 

 honey dew. 



Messrs. Ehrenberg & Hemprich attribute the 

 formation of manna in the mountains of Sinai, 

 to the bite of the coccus on the leaves of the tree 

 Tamarix mannifera. They say : "The manna 

 falls on the earth from the regions of the air, is 

 from the top of the trees and not from the sky. 

 The Arabs call it man. Tlie aborigines and the 

 Greek monks gather it to eat on the bread like 

 honey. 1 have seen it fall from the tree, I have 

 gathered it and brought some to Berlin with the 

 plant and the insect." 



The manna gathered in 18G9 at Liebfrauen- 

 berg, did not originate from an insect like that 

 of Mount Sinai, although it was composed of 

 the same substances. When it was first noticed 

 on the linden, no insects were to be seen. After 

 a day or so, lice were perceived glued on a few 

 ©f the leaves. I have seen the above, after hav- 

 ing washed the extremity of some of the 

 branches. Some diminutive drops of dew were 

 discovered increasing constantly until the leaves 

 were entirely covered with it. 



This slow and progressive extension of the 

 honey dew was evidently accomplished without 

 the help of lice, which like bees and other 

 insects, arrived only afterward to suck the 

 sugared food. 



Translated from the Bulletin des' seances de 

 la societe centrale d' Agriculture de France, by 



Ch. Dadant. 



The above article explains the immense yield 

 of honey gathered by Messrs. Gallup and Hosmer. 

 When such dews happen, the bees are never 

 numerous enough to gather all. Oak trees in 

 my neighborhood give some honey occasionally. 

 It happens generally when the atmosphere has 

 been cooled after a thunder storm. I have seen 

 that very often every season ; it is scarcely ever 

 very ahundaut, but helps the bees to a certain 

 extent. 



Ch. D. 



[For Wagner's Ainerieau Bee Journal.] 



The Berlepsch Declaration. 



We call special attention to the Baron of Ber- 

 lepsch's reply, published by Mr. King, to our 

 friendly strictures upon his " Declaration." 



These who desire to examine the matters in 

 controversy, have now all the facts before them, 

 and need no special comments from us to in- 

 fluence their opinions. 



We accept the baron's explanation that he no 

 longer holds us responsible for what he once 

 supposed to be our arrogant and ridiculous as- 

 sumptions, or for attempting to claim his inven- 

 tion as our own. We have, from our own ex- 

 perience, too much sympathy for his loss of 

 health, to seek to involve him in any unneces- 

 sary controversies. 



L. L. Langstrotu. 



REPLY OF BARON VON BERLEPSCH TO MR. 



LANGSTROTH'S STRICTURES ON HIS 



DECLARATION. 



Translated from the German for the "Beekeeper's Journal," 

 BY CHARLES L. COHN. 



I do not understand the English language, and con- 

 sequently was obliged to have Mr. Langstroth's article 

 translated into German, and of course am compelled 

 to give my answer in German also, but cannot be held 

 responsible for its correct English translation. 



Mr. Langstroth's accusations are, that my letters 

 to the Bieneiizeitung contradict the statements of my 

 declaration in the case of Otis vs. King. 



The first contradiction Mr. L. professes to find is, 

 that in my second letter to Mr. Dzierzon, I said I had 

 exposed myself to well deserved ridicule, because I 

 had condemned a hive the construction of which I 

 did not understand, while in my declaration 1 said 

 that I had already in 1843, recognized the importance 

 of the invention, and sought to improve it by sub- 

 stituting frames for hars. 



In the spring of 1843, I got of John Baptist Furst, 

 in Frauensdorf, Bavaria, a so-called Dzierzon hive, 

 but I found afterwards that it was falsely constructed, 

 because the bars ran from front to rear, instead of 

 from right to deft. I remedied this evil, but con- 

 demned the "Dzierzon hive," because I took it for 

 granted that the bars in all of them were like this 

 one. But on a visit to him afterwards, I found that 

 his bars were properly arranged, and that ' ; I had 

 made myself ridiculous" by slandering his hives in 

 general. When, in my declaration, I asserted that I 

 appn-ciated the importance of his invention, I was 

 alluding, as a matter of course, only to the movable 

 feature of the hive. 



In consequence of the false position of the smart 

 frames of the above-mentioned Dzierzon hive, it was 

 impossible to place them in firmly, and after I dis- 

 covered the correct idea of ranging them from right to 

 left, I had only to remedy the defect of their being at 

 irregular distances from each other, which I accom- 

 plished by " winirs " at the corners. 



This explanation fully answers Mr. L.'s second 

 accusation also, for even if I had not perfected a 

 plan for keeping the bars at proper, regular distances, 

 ■it is nevertheless a fact that the practical idea of movable 

 frames was invcn'ed, and the following summer suf- 

 ficiently proved their usefulness. 



The th rd contradiction, so called, is, that the glass 

 doors were in the rear of my hives, but I wished to 

 have them like Dzierzon's, on its sides. To effect this, 

 it was not necessary to have new hives made, but 

 simply to turn the hive and make the entrance hole 

 on the other side. 



In no way could Mr. King influence my declaration, 

 because at the time it was given, that gentleman had 

 already gone back to America; and while he was 

 present, we were, as a matter of course, not able to 

 understand each other, because he is not able to speak 

 German, and I do not understand Emrlish. And' I 

 do not know whether I came to the view that Mr. 

 Langstroth claims the absolute invention of said 

 frames and glass supers, through an American news- 

 paper, or a falsely translated expression of Mr. King's. 

 I know wery well that the same invention may have 

 been discovered by different persons at the same time, 

 but I nevertheless hold Mr. Propokovitsch, a Russian 

 gentleman, as the original inventor of the small 

 frames. The credit does not belong to Fraucois Huber, 

 because his hive consists of several parts. 



1 called Mr. Langstroth's hive totally impracticable. 

 I will take that expression back, but must neverthe- 

 less declare it to be greatly interior to those in use in 

 Germany. 



