GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Feb. 1. 



Indeed, it is beyond any doubt that eggs from laying 

 workers, or unmated queens, that can not have re- 

 ceived any spermatozoa, do produce drones, but this 

 does not yet prove that, under normal conditions, 

 drones are pr idiiced from uuimpreguated eggs. How- 

 ever, something happened in 1855 that compelled all 

 who were antagonistic to the Dzierzou theory to hold 

 their peace. Prof Siebold discovered, after careful 

 microscopical examinations, that eggs taken from 

 worker-cells contained sperm; eggs from drone-cells, 

 not. Since there was no greater master to oppose 

 Siebold, the matter has rested there, scarcely any 

 objection having been raised since. But I acknowl- 

 edge only one master, and that is penetrating obser- 

 vation — the true natural science. 



It is sometimes said that nothing new or of impor- 

 tance has recently been offered in bee-science : but 

 that is not quite true. For instance, who of the older 

 scientists knew any thing about transferring eggs and 

 larvae? Well, with the help of these "kinks" I was 

 enabled to prove what for a long time had been my 

 conviction ; viz., that a normal queen lays only im- 

 pregnated eggs, and that it is the mission of the 

 nurse-bees to decide whether queen, worker bee, or 

 drone is to be the outcome. You may imagine' that a 

 great many experiments had to be made before I found 

 the desired proof. My greatest difficulty was to trans- 

 fer eggs successfully. As last I did succeed, using for 

 an instrument a needle bent at the point. 



I ask you to see for yourself, and repeat the follow- 

 ing experiment : Transfer perfectly fresh eggs from a 

 drone comb to a worker comb, and give this to a col- 

 ony that has been queenless long enough to have 

 become somewhat apathetic. The bees will not 

 accept transferred eggs, but tear them out. The 

 development of these eggs will show that workers and 

 queens may be produced from drone eggs. 



Another experiment, still easier, is the following : 

 Remove from a drone comb all larvae, and replace 

 with just hatched larvae from a worker comb, and 

 give the one thus prepared to a colony under the same 

 conditions as before. You will then see queens and 

 drones h-itch from the impregnated or worker eggs, 

 even after the3' had hatched out. Any one may make 

 these experiments and convince himself. 



If we, then, b iug the proof that the male as well as 

 the female individuals originate from the impregnat- 

 ed eggs, we add nothing to natural science. This has 

 been known for a long time. It has been denied only 

 bv us bee keepers. Different, however, is it with the 

 quest'on. " What influence controls the sex of the 

 offspring?" Scientists have held that all eggs are 

 alike from the beginning, having the male and female 

 rudimentary beginnings side and side, the act of 

 coition deciding which of the two elements is to de- 

 velop. Reasoning from the outcome of our experi- 

 ments, what are we to say in this matter? Through 

 Dzierzou we know that unfertilized eggs produce 

 male offspring; and Berlepsch expressed this theory, 

 " All eggs have from beginning the male tendency." 

 We can now enlarge and perfect the the :>ry by add- 

 ing, " By the spermatozoa that each egg receives as it 

 is being laid, it receives with it the female tendency, 

 and both are then represented in equal strength." If 

 you will repeat my experiments you will become con- 

 vinced that the workers must and do decide in which 

 direction the egg is to develop, one o' the other re- 

 maining dormant. If we herewith bring the proof 

 that not the act of coition decides the sex of offspring, 

 but another factor, then we have brought cut a new 

 truth for which we shall receive due credit. 



Although Dr. Miller said about the Dickel 

 theory in substance, "We can afford to let 

 them fight it out across the water ; no use of 

 our wasting our efforts," I will not criticise 

 the doctor. However, to me this fight is ex- 

 ceedingly interesting ; and, though I am not 

 able to take an active part therein, I have fol- 

 lowed it very closely, and the reader may 

 excuse me if, in the foregoing, I have given at 

 least a few glimpses of the battlefield. 



Naples, N. Y. 



[Some little time before this we received a 

 communication from Dr. Miller, relating to 

 the same theory. He briefly stated the Dzier- 

 zon position, and also that of Prof. Dickel. 

 As both of these positions are a little more 

 fully stated above, I omit that portion of the 



doctor's article, giving only his conclusion; 

 and this conclusion I am quite willing to adopt 

 as my own. — Ed.] 



It would take many pages to give all the ar- 

 guments that have been advanced in support 

 of the theory, and also in rebuttal. It hardly 

 seems wise that page after page of Gleanings 

 should be occupied repeating what has been 

 said in the German papers. If a considerable 

 number of Germany's able investigators should 

 embrace the new theory, it may then be time 

 to give the reasons why we should become 

 converts on this side. On the other hand, if 

 it should turn out that Dzierzou is right in 

 characterizing the new theory as rank non- 

 sense, it will be well that so many pages have 

 been saved for better use. 



For some reason Germans are more rich in 

 theories than Americans, and we owe them 

 much in this regard ; but it would hardly be 

 profitable to keep fully informed as to all their 

 theories. Some of them are no more profita- 

 ble than an American theory that lived its life 

 of several months in the year 1861, when the 

 first volume of the American Bee Journal 

 was published. E. Kirby, in order to avoid 

 the acceptance of the theory of parthenogen- 

 esis, put forth the theory that the workers 

 alight on the drones' backs when in flight, 

 causing them to give off their semen, which 

 the workers lick up and carry to their appro- 

 priate cells in their hives, for the purpose of 

 propagating the young queens. This makes 

 the queen all right to lay drone eggs, but she 

 must meet the drone to prepare her for laying 

 eggs of the other kind. That this theory 

 should have received as much attention as it 

 did, seems rather strange at the present day, 

 for it was discussed in several numbers, occu- 

 pying in all some eight pages. 



A correspondent sends me a conundrum 

 something after this fashion : Suppose a work- 

 er leaves a foul -broody colony and goes to the 

 field, gathers a load of fresh honey, and on 

 returning enters a wrong hive occupied by a 

 healthy colony. Will that load of honey give 

 foul brood to the healthy colony ? 



Without being too positive about it, I should 

 say that the disease would not be thus given. 

 Bees are economical of time and strength ; 

 and, if I am not mistaken, when a worker 

 goes to the field it starts with an empty honey- 

 sac, and when it returns from the field it has 

 in its sac only the nectar it has gathered since 

 leaving the hive. 



There may be some danger that a young bee 

 taking its first playspell might carry affected 

 honey into a neighboring hive ; but the great 

 danger is that bees of a healthy colony may 

 themselves carry the disease by robbing the 

 diseased colony. A tenth of a drop of honey 

 thus carried, if no attention is paid to the 

 matter, may be enough to ruin a colony. 



C. C. Miller. 



[I have had considerable experience along 

 the line of the question asked by your corres- 

 pondent. I found this to be true: That when- 

 ever a colony, perfectly healthy, faces in the 

 same direction near another colony that was 

 diseased, I was almost sure, sooner or later, to 



