534 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAl^. 



The StinrTrowd Theory— Open Letter. 



Written Jo?- the A.mericcm Bee Journal 

 BY EEV. W. F. CLARKE. 



I should have replied sooner to your 

 "Stray Straws" in Gleanings for Feb. 

 1st, referring to myself, Dr. Miller, but 

 that they found me verxj slowly recover- 

 ing from an attack of la grippe. It will 

 now be my business to show wherein 

 these Straws are a-stray. 



If von Planta's work is correct, and it 

 follows as a necessary deduction there- 

 from that bees do not inject any drop- 

 lets of formic acid into honey when cap- 

 ping their cells, I am entirely satisfied 

 to have you proclaim the "exit "of my 

 theory. But I should like to have you 

 do it in a correct manner, and a proper 

 spirit. " Rev. Clarke" is a mode of al- 

 lusion not sanctioned by the rules of 

 syntax. Nor is it courteous. It is also 

 indefinite. There are, I suppose, many 

 "Rev. Clarkes" in the world besides 

 myself. Moreover, the spirit of " Stray 

 Straw " number one is not amiable. 

 There is a chuckle of satisfaction, if not 

 a gloat of triumph in it. 



Von Planta's experiments have not 

 yet been corroborated, nor have his con- 

 clusions been accepted by the scientific 

 world. I want to see what the highest 

 chemical authorities have to say about 

 them. Cheshire, that most patient and 

 careful microscopist, will certainly fol- 

 low von Planta with critical scrutiny. 

 Having, in a way, comrait«ted himself 

 to my theory in Vol. II, page 587, of 

 his incomparable book, he is in duty 

 bound to do so. He says: " Herr K. 

 Muilenhoff and the Rev. Wm. F. Clarke 

 have pointed out that formic acid is pro- 

 vided by the bees by depositing droplets 

 from their stings which they touch on 

 the face of the honey." Should von 

 Planta's views be confirmed as absolutely 

 correct, it will be in order for Dr. Miller 

 to call on some one to demonstrate that 

 formic acid is not and cannot be im- 

 parted to honey at both ends of the bee. 



I am not a scientist, and must take 

 largely on trust the scientific facts to 

 which scientists bear testimony. But I 

 want more than one witness to an al- 

 leged fact, and am not prepared " to go 

 it blind," at the bidding of any single 

 authority. Gravenhorst quotes Schoen- 

 feld, who says, regarding MuUenhofif's 

 view : " His supposition that the bees 

 before sealing the cell deposit in it, by 

 means of the sting, a small drop of 

 formic acid, certainly appears to be very 

 natural, and to explain the question in 



a nutshell, but it is doubtless incorrect." 

 The reasons then given for pronouncing 

 Mullenhofl's and ray view incorrect are 

 not stated, and I would like very much 

 to know what they are. Dr. Miller will 

 do well to note that Schoenfeld speaks 

 of the theory put forth by Muilenhoff 

 and myself in respectful terms. He 

 says: "It certainly appears very nat- 

 ural." While considering it incorrect, 

 and giving reasons for that opinion, he 

 does not exclaim, with a chuckle, if not 

 a gloat, " Exit Rev. Clarke's theory." 



Straw number two is worse than straw 

 number one. I should be thankful to 

 have any one " demonstrate that a sting 

 can't be used for a trowel," if such be 

 the fact. No one has done it yet. Dr. 

 Miller being witness. Why doesn't Dr. 

 Miller do it himself, since he is so anx- 

 ious to have it done ? I will gratefully 

 accept correction of any opinion of mine 

 that can be shown to be an error. But, 

 when, in the acknowledged absence of 

 proof, I am called upon to " be candid 

 enough to arise and explain that there 

 never was any basis except a vivid im- 

 agination for the sting-trowel theory," I 

 feel insulted and indignant. This is the 

 old style in which heretics were called 

 on to recant in the dark ages. It is a 

 good thing Dr. Miller has not the power 

 to put me on the rack, and, after tor- 

 turing me awhile, order me to " arise 

 and explain " as above. The old-time 

 heretics were required to subscribe to a 

 lie, and I should be telling a lie were I 

 to comply witli Dr. Miller's demand. 



I thought there was a real basis for 

 my theory, or I should never have enun- 

 ciated it. My reasons have been stated, 

 but I will state them again here as 

 briefly as possible. Having arrived at 

 the conclusion that the bees in capping 

 their cells deposited droplets from their 

 stings which they touch on the face of 

 the honey, the question occured to me 

 whether they simply squirted the formic 

 acid on the surface of the honey, or 

 made some use of their stings in finish- 

 ing tlie cells. Movements of the bees, 

 while the finishing touches were being 

 put on, led me to think that they used 

 their stings as plasterers do very small 

 trowels in putting a putty coat on a 

 ceiling or wall. The microscopic ap- 

 pearance of the surface of the cell- 

 work when finished is such as to bear 

 out the idea. Any one who has seen 

 Cheshire's large charts will understand 

 this point very readily. Finally, it 

 seemed a reasonable thing that a bee- 

 sting should have some other and more 

 beneficent use, than that of inflicting 

 pain and injury. 



