502 



AMERICAN BEE lOUFNAL 



Aug. 7, 1902. 



"have lost more than one or two of these. So we must 

 ■emphasize the need of good stores for winter. 



It is not probable that an accident of this kind will 

 occur very often, because honeydew may not appear for 

 years at the end of the season, but it is very clear that it 

 would be better to extract all such honey, when it is present 

 in the hives, rather than run the risk of its pernicious in- 

 fluence on the health of the bees. 



But the beginner should remember, when he meets such 

 a disaster, that it is a mistake to get discouraged ; first, be- 

 cause such things do not happen very often ; and, secondly, 

 because an apiary can very soon be recuperated when you 

 have the hives, the combs, and a few good colonies left to 

 breed from. With a number of hives full of combs and 

 partly full of honey, the most insignificant swarms can be 

 turned into strong colonies in a few weeks of warm weather. 



Hancock Co., 111. 



What Determines Sex ?— A Big Oiuestion. 



liV PROF. A. J. COOK. 



When we stop to think, the fact of the approximate 

 equality of the sexes numerically, not only among our own 

 species but among most organisms, can but awaken sur- 

 prise. It would seem that the determining factor must be 

 some fortuitous event that is just as liable to turn one way 

 as the other. It also speaks of a Planner who controls in 

 the physical world, and has planned that the best — equality 

 of the sexes in number — shall always hold. 



Cattle-breeders have often argued that each alternate 

 egg that passes from the ovaries will produce males, and 

 the others will develop into females. While there is enough 

 evidence to give this position some standing, and to effect 

 results in auction sales of fine cattle, yet the numerous ex- 

 ceptions seem to negate its reliability, and I think now it has 

 no hold at all among scientists. 



The theory most advocated to-day is that the quantity 

 of nourishment which the embryo at the time of sex-deter- 

 mination governs in fixing the trend. It is a well-known 

 fact that the sexes are indistinguishable for some time. The 

 sex-organs are present long before they are diflferentiated 

 so that the sex can be determined even by closest examina- 

 tion. Even the keenest, best microscope can not tell 

 whether male or female is to result. I doubt if there is any 

 difference at first. Just when the difi'erence commences, or 

 what determines it, are interesting questions. The view 

 now being explained is that the vigor of female just at the 

 crucial time effects the trend of development. If the 

 female is strong, and all her organs in healthy condition so 

 that the egg or embryo will receive a maxiura of nourish- 

 ment, then a female results. If the reverse is true, then a 

 male is produced. This theory has much to sustain it, else 

 it would not receive the support and advocacy of our most 

 advanced scientists. 



THE ARGUMENT. 



The animals and plants that first peopled the world, 

 when Time was young, as also similar simple life today, 

 are sexless, and only produced by division. These organ- 

 isms are single-celled. They produce by simple dividing. 

 After a ti;ae, that is, after they have divided again and 

 again, they conjugate, that is, two cellsunitein closeapposi- 

 tion. After remaining together for a season they separate, 

 when division goes on as before, each organism dividing 

 and becoming two. That this conjugation in some way 

 gives new vigor and strength cannot be doubted. This is 

 surely a precursor in purpose and reality of real sexes 

 among plants and animals. 



BEES IN THE ARGUMENT. 



The Dzierzon theory of agamic reproduction, or parthe- 

 nogensis, in the production of drone-bees, it seems to me 

 offers a substantial argument in favor of the new theory, I 

 truly believe, notwithstanding the note of criticism that 

 ever and anon is being sounded forth by doubters, that no 

 truth in science is better founded than this, that the drone- 

 bee is the result of reproduction from unimpregnated eggs. 

 A few in early summer, and later, at the volition of the 

 queen, have the sperm-cells withheld. These invariably 

 produce drones. Old queens whose sperm-sacs, or sperma- 

 thecas, have become emptied of the sperm-cells received 

 at the time of mating, produce only drones. We call such, as 

 also unmated queens, that lay eggs that develop, "drone- 

 layers;" such can lay unimpregnated eggs, and so such 

 can produce only drones, and are worthless. 



We have seen how conjugation vivifies the lower organ- 

 ism. The giving of its substance, or exchange of substance, 

 adds vigor and enhances vitality. Can we doubt that in 

 the incorporation of the sperm within the egg of both plants 

 and animals also gives new vigor, and that this is a princi- 

 pal purpose of sexuality in all organisms? It follows that 

 the impregnated egg would have an added vigor, and if it 

 is true that added vigor determines female structure and 

 function, then, in case all eggs develop, those that have re- 

 ceived the sperm will produce females, while the others will 

 result in males. Usually, unimpregnated eggs have not 

 vigor sufficient to develop at all. Prof. Loeb has shown 

 that in some cases the addition of certain chemicals can in- 

 duce this development of eggs without sperm, that else 

 would have been infertile. Thus I believe the. production 

 of drone-bees from unimpregnated eggs, and females from 

 impregnated ones, among ants, bees and wasps, is a real 

 argument in favor of our theory. 



There are other arguments. In the plant kingdom we 

 find some cases where the reproductive cells are better fed 

 and developed, and these always produce eggs, and are 

 females. Plants and animals are alike in their basic struc- 

 ture, and such a phenomenon in one can be safely used as 

 an argument in regard to the other. 



If this theory is true, then if a female is kept in maxi- 

 mun vigor during gestation, the progeny will be female ; if 

 at a certain indeterminate time there is lack of vigor then a 

 male will result. It is possible that an indigestible meal, 

 a hard task, or a bitter disapp9intment, may have been 

 parents of many a male, while the opposite gives us our 

 females. Los Angeles Co., Calif. 



Metliods of Rearing Good Queen-Bees. 



BY F. GREINEK. 



The cool and rainy weather of late has been unfavor- 

 able for honey-gathering here, and extremely so for queen- 

 rearing. I am very anxious to put to test some of the newer 

 and cheaper methods of keeping young queens in very 

 small nuclei for the purpose of having them mated; but the 

 weather we have had all during June has not permitted of 

 any such work. At least it did not appear to me that mere 

 handfuls of bees could be depended upon for it. If queen- 

 rearing is at all practicable here during such times, good, 

 strong, three-frame nuclei are to be preferred. Warmth — a 

 certain degree of it — is essential for the development of 

 brood, and I would as soon think of running an incubator 

 10 degrees below the proper temperature, as to mature bee- 

 nymphs at a low temperature. 



Of course, we do not know just in what manner, or to 

 what extent, bee-brood is injured by letting it become cold 

 or chilled. It is difficult to ascertain this. Capped brood 

 may be exposed to a low temperature for a time and not be 

 harmed, so far as I can see ; but to be on the safe side, 

 developing queens should be kept at the proper temperature 

 all the time. This, however, is no higher in a doubled-up 

 colony than in a single one when in full strength, and I 

 can, therefore, see no advantage in using two colonies 

 united for the purpose of rearing queens in that respect. If 

 there was, one might reason thus : 



If a single colony rears queens living three years, and a 

 doubled-up colony queens living six years — about what Dr. 

 Gallup claims — then ten colonies united into one giant col- 

 ony must rear queens living 30 years. By continuing this 

 doubling-up plan we would finally produce queens reaching 

 the age of Methuselah, etc.. ad infinitum. I can not think 

 that Nature should have made a mistake in limiting the 

 powers of a queen, the life of a queen, or that of the workers. 



I suppose one might assert that two colonies united 

 would be able to prepare a greater quantity of royal food, 

 and in order to dispose of it would provide it for the baby 

 queens more lavishly It could be supposed that there was 

 a limit to the production of this food. One colony, for in- 

 stance, might be able to feed a dozen queen-larv;f properly, 

 but no more. A doubled-up colony would have to feed each 

 of the 12 larva; a double portion ; the same would result if 

 but six cells were allowed to be built in the single colony. 

 The superiority of queens would thus be governed to a great 

 extent by the numberof cells built in each colony. If but 

 few cells were built they would be very large in order to 

 hold this greater quantity of food. But this is not so. Only 

 recently one of my best colonies built but a single queen- 

 cell. It is exceptionally small. Another colony by its side 

 built 12 or IS, all of which were large and long, indicating 

 a large amount of food under the developing insect. 



