198 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[March 



impregnated, and the spermatozoa are entirely want- 

 ing. In the genus Chermes (Ch. abietis, Kaltenb., 

 Ch. laricis, Harling, Ch. piceve, Ratzb., Phyllosera 

 coccinea, Heyden) of the plant-lice, having, accord- 

 ing to Leuckart,* both a winter and a winged 

 summer generation, which latter was erroneously 

 taken for males by Ratzeburg, reproduction pro- 

 ceeds by means of eggs without previous impregna- 

 tion. Leuckart examined two hundred animals, 

 and never found males but always females, and 

 they virgins. Males do not seem to exist, or if they 

 do, parthenogenical reproduction seems to be the 

 rule. Less accurate observations of the same kind 

 were made by Dr. Ormerodf on the Vespa britannica, 

 and by StoneJ on the Vespa vulgaris. 



Leuckart (pp. 105-107) has furthermore estab- 

 lished the fact that in all other sociable Hymenoptera, 

 as the bumble-bee, the wasp, and the ant, as well 

 as in the bee, parthenogenesis prevails. Egg-laying 

 workers, which are exceptional with bees, are the 

 rule with these animals. Future researches must 

 decide whether their progeny is always male, as 

 Huber's$ observations of bumble-bees seem to indi- 

 cate. No doubt we will also find parthenogenesis with 

 many other insects, such as the termites and the 

 gall-fly. In the gall-fly, a species of cynips, no 

 male has yet been discovered, but only females. 



The experiments of Lievin and Zeuker, which 

 demonstrated the spontaneous development of the 

 daphides, have been confirmed by J. Lubbock. 

 Millions of the females of these animals, which are 

 scarcely a line long, may be seen in summer mov- 

 ing about in cisterns and other standing sweet 

 waters. They multiply in rapidly succeeding gene- 

 rations by means of unimpregnated or summer 

 eggs in a cavity between the shell and the back of 

 the animal, where they develop into individuals 

 exactly resembling the mother, and multiplying 

 parthenogenetically on separating from her. In the 

 fall males are born, which cohabit with the females 

 and produce one or two darkly-colored winter- 

 eggs, which are surrounded by a second firm 

 envelope called the ephippium, to protect them 

 during their hibernation. 



Although there can be no longer any doubt about 

 the correctness of these facts, which have been 

 established by the repeated, careful and accurate 

 observations of our most distinguished zoologists, 

 and although the existence of parthenogenesis 

 among a number of articulate animals is proved 

 beyond dispute, attempts are not wanting to render 

 them suspicious, and represent them as unreliable. 

 Every truth differing from long cherished opinions 

 is received slowly and with difficulty. 



Tigri proposed, in a paper to the Paris Academy 

 of Sciences, || to explain the parthenogenesis of the 

 Bombyx mori by the supposition that there is a 

 double cocoon containing two individuals, a male 

 and a female, which might have copulated before 

 leaving their shell. This supposition would pre- 

 suppose the most extraordinary carelessness on the 

 part of the above-mentioned observers. It amounts 



*Troschel'8 Archives, vol. 25, p. 208. Schizmieura seems to 

 have only an oviparous fall generation. 



t Zoologist, 1859; and Entomol. Annual for 1860, p. 87. 



X Proceedings Entomological Society, 1859, p. 86. Smith in 

 Entomol. Annual for 1801, p. 39. 



\ Transactions of Linn. Society, 1802, vol. 6, p. 288. 



| Compt. Bond., Iv. 1862, p. 106. 



to charging them with not being able to distinguish 

 a double from a single cocoon, or with neglecting 

 to examine the organs of generation and determine 

 the sex of the individuals. Errors of so crude a 

 nature would hardly be committed by men but little 

 acquainted with methods of research, much less by 

 naturalists of high standing. 



Schaum* states that he cannot receive the theory 

 of the parthenogenesis of insects, and thinks he can 

 explain it away by an hypothesis of Pringsheim. 

 According to this the queen-bee, and the workers 

 which lay eggs, might be androgynous, and possess 

 male organs of generation besides their ovaries. 

 In all cases where the skilful anatomists, v. Siebold 

 and Leuckart, dissected such bees, there were.no 

 traces of testicles, so that the above supposition 

 remains without foundation. 



The existence of hermaphrodite bees, which were 

 observed by v. Siebold in the apiaries of Mr. 

 Engster, of Constanz, Bavaria, f cannot be brought 

 forward as a proof against parthenogenesis, but 

 rather seems to confirm it. It was observed that 

 the pure worker-bees drove the hermaphrodites out 

 of the hive the moment they left their eggs, and did 

 not even suffer them to remain on the board out- 

 side. The hermaphrodites perished in a short time, 

 and could never have reached the egg-laying stage, 

 even if eggs had afterward formed in their originally 

 empty ovaries. According to Pringsheim, every 

 queen would have to be an hermaphrodite ; but in 

 the lance-winged and drone-producing queens, 

 which were repeatedly examined by the above 

 observers, no trace of androgynism or of spermato- 

 zoa could be found. 



Dybocosky also appeared against parthenogenesis 

 in his inaugural dissertation, "de parthenogenesi ;" 

 but his objections are unfounded, and evince neither 

 thorough investigation nor satisfactory knowledge 

 of the subject. The same is the case with various 

 other objections brought forward by the opponents 

 of parthenogenesis. None of them will stand test. 



The reliability of the theory is established be- 

 yond doubt by many well-proved facts, and we may 

 rejoice that we have thus gained a new and highly 

 important law for the explanation of the most won- 

 derful phenomena in the animal kingdom. 



Novice. 



Mr. Editor : — We are glad to see the familiar 

 face of our old Bee Journal once more, changed in 

 no way, except to improve it. 



Thanks for your kind notice of "Gleanings." 

 The article entitled " The December Journal," it 

 seems to us, Mr. Burch should have headed " On 

 Novice." Our article in the same number answers 

 most of his charges, and those who care to examine 

 our writings here for the past year, beside those of 

 Mr. B., in the Bee Keepers' Journal, can see whether 

 there is not more repetition of our ideas (not 

 language) than could be accidental. What few 

 ideas we originate we prefer should be credited to 

 "Novice," or the American Bee Journal, at least. 



* Berliner Entom. Zeitschrift, viii, p. 93. 



|C. Th. v. Siebold on Androgynous Bees, Zeitschrift fur 

 wissenschaftliche Zoologie, vol. xiv, No. l,and in the Eichstadter 

 Bienenzeitung, year xix, p. 223. 



