720 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



ReplytoRey. W. F.Clarte 



Written for the American Bee Journal 



BY DK. C. C. MILLER. 



You say my last letter "does not 

 mend matters at all." I am glad to say 

 that yours does, for in it you do the very 

 thing that I have wanted you to do all 

 the time — that is, you disclaim the sting- 

 trowel theory as a fact, but hold it 

 " merely as a matter of opinion." I only 

 wish you had said that long ago. 



You say, speaking of the lack of 

 courtesy, " It is not the omission of in- 

 itials that I chiefly find fault with, but 

 the entire tout ensemble of the phrase." 

 If I have understood you, the thing you 

 object to is my saying "Rev. Clarke" 

 instead of " Rev. W. F. Clarke." Is not 

 "the omission of the initials" the "en- 

 tire," complete, and whole tout ensem- 

 ble ? Please say what else there is ob- 

 jectionable if the initials were put in. 



I have never seen " Med." used as a 

 title, so I don't knov/ whether it would 

 be courteous or not. But I don't see 

 what that has to do with the case. Put- 

 ting " Med." instead of "Dr." is not a 

 parallel case. I have not put any other 

 title in place of "Rev." Since you have 

 made a comparison, let us do it cor- 

 rectly. The two names are "Rev. W. 

 F. Clarke" and "Dr. C. C. Miller." 

 Omitting the initials I wrote "Rev. 

 Clarke." To parallel that, you should 

 write "Dr. Miller." That is exactly 

 what you have done more than once. I 

 did not consider it discourteous. I do 

 not believe you meant it so. 



You say " it is not grammatically cor- 

 rect." Have you proof of that ? 



You say, " I made it sufficiently plain 

 that I put forth the sting-trowel theory 

 merely as a matter of opinion, yet you 

 thrust it upon me as a dogmatic and 

 positive assertion of fact." That being 

 the case, either you have been unfortu- 

 nate in your manner of expression, or I 

 have been lacking in comprehension. 



For I have no recollection of seeing any 

 word of yours that made on my mind the 

 impression that you ever spoke of it as 

 other than fact. I quote from your 

 book, " A Bird's-Eye View of Bee-Keep- 

 ing," taking the liberty to italicise the 

 words to which I wish to call particular 

 attention. On page 48 you say : 



" And store sweet nectar in each vacant 



cell. 

 Smoothing and polishing the surface all 

 With that small trowel, we a dagger call, 

 But which by them em2)loycd so much is 

 In giving honey-comb its final touches." 



It seems to me I am hardly to blame 

 for considering *' is employed" "a posi- 

 tive assertion of fact." Lest there be 

 something in the way of poetic license 

 that I do not fully understand, let us 

 turn to the explanatory comment on 

 page 60. In plain prose you there say : 



" But there is something well worthy 

 of admiration in the fact that the most 

 important functions of the bee-sting are 

 those performed in doing the artistic 

 cell-work, and infusing the formic acid 

 by means of which honey receives its 

 keeping qualities." Am I to blame for 

 considering "a positive assertion of 

 fact " what you plainly call a " fact ?" 



You further say, "The sting is really 

 an exquisitely contrived little trowel 

 with which the bee finishes off and seals 

 the cells, when they are brimful of 

 honey." What but "a positive asser- 

 tion of fact" when you say what the 

 sting "really is ?" 



The scientific points you have raised 

 you think I find unanswerable. No, I 

 don't find them unanswerable — I'm not 

 sure that I find them at all. I think the 

 nearest to anything in that line is this 

 sentence: "The microscopic appear- 

 ance of the surface of the cell-work 

 when finished is such as to bear out the 

 idea." Have I not made a sufficient re- 

 ply to that? I said, " Bees by the hun- 

 dred can be seen at work on the combs, 

 and thousands of cells are sealed. Surely 

 if every capping is operated on as you 

 say, you ought to be able to see one soli- 

 tary instance." Further, bees can be 

 seen by any one who takes the trouble 

 to look, busily engaged working comb 

 with their mandibles. I think no one 

 has ever seen them using their stings in 

 wax-working. 



But as to the main point at issue 

 there is no longer any controversy, for 

 you say that you put forth the sting- 

 trowel theory as a matter of opinion, 

 not as a positive assertion of fact. 

 That's all I asked. You have a perfect 

 right to say you think bees polish combs 



