536 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



July 15. 



I 



DroiS^es raised from unfertilized queens, we 

 have been taught by good authority to believe, 

 are as good as any. Experiments made by Mr. 

 Dragan, a Carniolan bee-keeper, throw doubt 

 on this belief. On two diffei'ent occasions he 

 took a colony with such drones to a distance 

 from other colonies, introduced a virgin queen, 

 and in spite of the numbers of drones each 

 queen turned out a drone-layer. 



The wedding-tour of the young queen oc- 

 curs, according to some, as early as the third 

 day after leaving the cell, while others stoutly 

 assert that she waits till the sixth day. Both 

 are probably right. If only one cell is in the 

 hive, the queen is fertilized the fifth or sixth 

 day; while if, on account of other cells in the 

 hive, she remains a prisoner In her cell three 

 days she will be so many days sooner fertilized 

 after she leaves the cell. But her real age 

 from the egg is the same in both cases. 



PROF. H. W. WILEY. 



SOMETHING IN HIS DEFENSE FROM PROF. A. .J. 

 COOK. 



Dear Mr. Editor: — I have had, recently, quite 

 an extensive correspondence with Pi'of. H. W. 

 Wiley; and if, as I think, he has been misun- 

 derstood, and hence unjustly denounced by 

 bee-keepers, it is certainly none too soon to call 

 attention to the matter, and ask that we con- 

 sider before we condemn further. This is a 

 pleasanter duty, as I am sure that bee-keepers 

 are, almost to a man, fair, right-minded, and 

 most desirous that every person should have 

 his just deserts. Let me call attention to some 

 facts that I believe will mollify the bee-keepers 

 in respect to this able scientist, and, as I be- 

 lieve, most excellent man. 



When Prof. Wiley wrote his Popular Science 

 Monthly ai'ticle, in which he stated that comb 

 honey was extensively made and sold, he fully 

 believed it. He had had the facts from a relia- 

 ble party; and in these days of marvelous 

 inventions it is no wonder that he was deceived. 

 Bee-keepers knew at the time that it was ut- 

 terly untrue, as the most thorough investiga- 

 tion has since fully confirmed. Prof. Wiley 

 could not know this, and looked upon the mat- 

 ter as a very curious and interesting fact, 

 whicli, as is his fashion, he clothed in such 

 happy phrase as to add to the humor and in- 

 terest of the subject. This article was widely 

 copied, and, from the known ability and usual 

 reliability of the author, had great influence. 

 Bee-keepers, in attempting ti) sell comb honey, 

 were repeatedly ni<t w ith refusal, and the taunt- 

 ingexplanatioullialit wasartiticial,andafraud, 

 and tbey would have none of it. Of course, bee- 

 keepers were justly indignant, and the more so 

 as the error continued to spread and to work 

 its evil influence. Prof. Wiley knew nothing of 

 this. As he writes me. he had never regarded 

 the error as more than a harmless and comical 

 mistake. If he had in the least appreciated 

 the true state of tbe case, I am very sure he 

 would have made all haste to retract and cor- 

 rect. Smarting under the injury, bee-keepers 

 rushed into print, and, not without reason, as 

 we have S(!en. commericed the denunciation 

 with which we arc all familiar. It is most un- 

 fortunate that some editor or bee-keeper had 

 not done as we always ought to do in such cases 

 — written a courteous, friendly letter to Prof. 

 Wiley, explaining the matter from the bee- 

 keepers' standpoint, then all would have been 

 explained, all misunderstanding removed, and 

 all unkindness and wrong avoided. The bitter 

 denunciation led to Prof. Wiley's Indiana 

 Farmer article in June, 1883. Not understand- 



ing the real state of the case, and doubtless 

 influenced by the harsh criticisms in the bee- 

 journals, which, from his standpoint, seemed 

 violent and uncalled for. Prof. Wiley wrote the 

 unfortunate " scientific pleasantry " article, lie 

 thought he was aiming his sarcasm at a cause- 

 less and morbid sensitiveness or irritability on 

 the part of bee-keepers. It was really rasping 

 a real wound. Bee-keepers thought that, by 

 "scientific pleasantry," Prof. WMley meant he 

 wrote his statement as a joke, not as fact. 

 Thus many excellent men thought him disin- 

 genuous, to say the least. Prof. Wiley meant 

 to give no such impression. He belieVed the 

 statement true, and thought the matter very 

 interesting, not to say humorous, and hence the 

 expression which gave so much offense to bee- 

 keepers. Thus we see that Prof. Wiley was 

 not untruthful, nor even disingenuous. Indeed, 

 those who know Prof. Wiley know him to be a 

 courteous gentleman, incapable of deceit or 

 intended misrepresentation. 



Since the Indiana Farmer letter. Prof. Wiley 

 has made no reply. The attacks upon him 

 were so violent, and. to his mind, so unjust and 

 uncalled for. that he felt that it were most 

 wise and dignified to give them no heed. 



Prof. Wiley has published two Bulletins, giv- 

 ing analyses of honey. He also published an 

 article in the American Apiculturist, where 

 he mentioned receiving and analyzing honey 

 received from Mr. Muth. He did not state in 

 this last article that Mr. Muth's honey was 

 adulterated, but that samples 14. 16, and 17, 

 which were from Louisiana and Florida, were 

 apparently adulterated with invert sugar. He 

 adds that these may not have been adulterated, 

 but may have been the result of bees gathering 

 from or taking sucrose food. In speaking of 

 the honeys from Mr. Muth. he says: "These 

 honeys, obtained directly or indirectly from 

 well-known apiarists, I have every reason to 

 believe to be pure." In the reports, much 

 honey, and some with Mr. Muth"s labels, is 

 pronounced adulterated. But these analyses 

 were not made by Prof. Wiley, but by Profs. 

 Webber, of Columbus — Ohio State University — 

 and Scovell, of Lexington, Ky. I know both of 

 these gentlemen well, and know them to be 

 among the most able and capable chemists of 

 our country. That the analyses were well 

 made, and correct, so far as our present meth- 

 ods of analysis will permit, there can not be a 

 shadow of doubt. Either the honey was adul- 

 terated, or else the methods for chemical anal- 

 ysis are at fault. The latter may be true. In 

 either case we ought to be glad of the report. 

 Mr. Muth buys his honey. Can he. buying so 

 much, be always sure that all is pure? Most 

 of the sampjes with his label are pronounced 

 pure in the report. Might not occasional sam- 

 ples be adulterated, and Mr. Muth not know it? 

 If so, we S(>e there is much room for doubt. 

 Possibly the chemists have made mistakes, 

 owing to inability to always detect the spuri- 

 ous or genuine; and possibly Mr. Muth has 

 been mistaken. We are all human — all liable 

 to make mistakes. 



Now, Mr. Editor, to the point. It is of the 

 utmost importance that we be able to always 

 decide correctly between the spurious and the 

 genuine. Prof. Wiley admits that, at present, 

 we may be unable to do so. He further ex- 

 presses not only willingness but eagerness to 

 aid the bee-keepers in every way possible. We 

 all know that extracted honey is adulterated to 

 an enormous degree. It is for the best good of 

 the honey-producer and the public alike that 

 all adulteration be surely and speedily detect- 

 ed, and all adulterators severely punished. 

 That Prof. Wiley desires right and justice, ap- 

 pears from the following in his article in the 



