THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



85 



man and the higher animals have certain 

 parts of their structure specialized as lungs, 

 they infer that every thing tliat breathes must 

 liave like organs, and that the functions can- 

 not be exercised by any other. The special 

 breathing apparatus of worms consists of sim- 

 ple tilaments placed on tlie head, and they do 

 not take air into the body at all, and in addi- 

 tion to these tilauients, the whole surface of 

 tlie body serves as lungs, so that if a worm 

 be cut in two both i)arts will live, and become 

 independent animals. 



St. George ISIivarts, in Nature for Decem- 

 ber, 187;j, p. 108, says our skin is by no 

 means popularly credited with the great im- 

 portance really due it. " Only the skin ! " is 

 an exclamation not unfrequeutly heard, and 

 wonder is very often felt when death super- 

 venes after a burn which has injured but a 

 comparatively small surface of the body. 

 Yet our skin is really one of our most import- 

 ant organs, and is able to supplement, and to 

 a very slight extent to replace, the respective 

 actions of the kidneys, tlie liver, and the lungs. 

 [See Huxley's Elementary Physiology, Lesson 

 v., §19.) 



The same authority tells us that, " In the 

 frog we have this cutaneous activity devel- 

 oped in a much higher degree. . . . Its res- 

 piratory action is both constant and import- 

 ant. This has been experimentally demon- 

 strated by the detection of the carbonic acid 

 given out in water, over the head of which a 

 bladder had been so tightly tied as to pre- 

 vent the possibility of the escape of any 

 exhalation from the lungs. The fact of 

 cutaneous respiration has also been proven 

 by the experiment of confining frogs in cages 

 under water for more than two months and a 

 half, and by the cutting out of the lungs, the 

 creature continuing to live for forty days. 

 Indeed, it is now certain that the skin is so 

 important an agent in the frog's breathing 

 that the lungs do not suffice for the mainte- 

 nance of life without its aid." 



The only argument that Mr. Root uses 

 against the theory is, that practical experi- 

 ence disproves it, and he gives instances where 

 queens have been prolific afterwards and 

 lived a long time. Mr. I. L. Davis, of Mich- 

 igan, appears in your February number with an 

 instance of the same sort. But I can not admit 

 that the instances cited by either have any 

 weight, from the fact that the hives in which 

 the bees were kept re(iuired no great vigor in the 

 (jueens to keep up the population and to 

 swarm, and the fact that such queens lived 

 from three to six years proves nothing, for 

 it is not contended that it will take their 

 lives. My experience is that queens with 

 mutilated wings most generally live longer 

 than those with perfect wings, just as you 

 see many unhealthy men that exert them- 

 selves but little, outlive the more robust and 

 vigorous, not so careful of their vital force. 



It is now conclusively demonstrated that 

 the conditions under wliich we have been 

 keeping our bees liave restilcted the queens, 

 and tliat in jiroperly constructed hives, with 

 management adapted to their nature and in- 

 stincts, the fecundity of the queen is incredi- 

 ble. Some two years ago I published a small 

 book drawing the attention of apiarians to 

 what has become known as the " New Idea 

 Theory." It has been much ridiculed by 

 Mr. Root and others, but that lias not pre- 

 vented its successful use all over the country. 

 I will not go into the details of the theory 

 here, as this article is already of a tedious 

 length. At the late meeting of the North 

 American Bee-Keepers' Society, when the 

 subject of artificial swarming was under con- 

 sideration, I gave a statement of the main 

 points of it. In the synopsis of the proceed- 

 ings as published, it is too much abreviated 

 to give a fair understanding of it. I there- 

 fore send you an extract from the full report, 

 giving the whole of it, and as it will answer 

 many questions continually asked me, and 

 at the same time show Mr. Root and Mr. 

 Davis, why I do not consider their reported 

 instances as tests of the wing theory, request 

 you to publish it in full. If you have not 

 room for it in the same number with this, 

 give it in your next, if you please. 



D. L. Adair. 



Hawesville, Ky. 



For the American Bee Journal. 



Murdering Bees. 



Under this heading the February number 

 of the American Bee Journal copies an ar- 

 ticle from the British Bee Journal, in which 

 an English bee-keeper relates that the bees of 

 one of his straw hives destroyed each other, 

 and says that the murdered bees are of a 

 smaller size. The editor of the British Bee 

 Journal, in answer says, that he has experi- 

 enced the same with his bees and that he thinks 

 it is on account of their small size that these 

 bees are murdered. 



I have seen sometimes a similar accident 

 in my apiary, several years ago; and I 

 searched for the real cause. Having mova- 

 ble combs, I have not been long in ascertain- 

 ing it. The bees killed were very young, 

 and the murderers were the oldest. These 

 old bees were not killing their sisters to rid 

 the hive of them, but the young were starved 

 by the famished gatherers, which could find 

 nothing in the fields and nothing in the hive to 

 appease their hunger. 



I have ascertained that the newly hatched 

 bees consume more honey in the first fort- 

 night of their life, than they have consumed 

 from the egg to their last transformation. 

 Tne newly born bee is very small ; after two 

 days it is very big, even bigger than the old 



