1904 



OLi'ANlN'GS IN nr.K CUL'IURI-:. 



847 



b^e knows by instinct that it must make 

 cells and feed the larvji? while it is young; 

 but instinct is blamed with too many th'r.jjs 

 already, and it is better to find, if possible, 

 some real cause rather than fool ourselves 

 by attributing all the actions to a thing 

 which we can not define. I do not mean to 

 in^.ply that it is impossible for instinct to 

 brmg this about, but 1 think it very improb- 

 able, and personally prefer some other ex- 

 planation. 



In my work on "Compound Eyes " I no- 

 ticed that the entire eye is covered by- un- 

 branched hairs; and in trying to find some 

 use for these I was entirely at sea until I 

 noticed that, although the young bees have 

 their eyes well covered, the field bees have 

 almost every hair removed. These hairs 

 are so dense in young bees that it is difficult 

 to conceive of the bee seeing any thing 

 clearly; but there is no such obstruction for 

 old bees. It then occurred to me that pos- 

 sibly this was in some way connected with 

 the division of labor which we find. 



It has been shown that a young bee can 

 get along without sight, since none of its 

 actions require acute vision, and the pres- 

 ence of these hairs indicates that it is prob- 

 ably nearly blind. Can we not, then, ex- 

 plain the confinement of the young bees to 

 inside duties of the hive by the fact that it 

 can not see to do any thing else? We do 

 not call it instinct when a soldier ant pro- 

 tects the colony and does none of the work 

 of the workers, since it is structurally un- 

 able to care for the larvae; and it is equally 

 unnecessary to attribute to instinct the fact 

 that the young bee does not gather honey, 

 since it can not see to fly further from the 

 hive than the distance to which scent will 

 guide it. There may be some other struc- 

 tural difference between young and old 

 bees; but it seems to me that these small 

 hairs must be of great importance to the 

 colony in compelling bees to do the different 

 kinds of work. Old bees can build comb 

 and feed larvae, but do so only when it is 

 absolutely necessary; but a young bee can 

 do nothing else. 



Medina, O. 



PRIORITY RIGHTS. 



A Reply to Dr. C. C. Miller. 



BY WM. W. WHITNEY. 



Dr. Miller, in Stray Straws for Aug. 1, 

 seems to take exception to the conclusions 

 Mr. Ethics came to after doing some "hard 

 thinking, " and thinks his reasoning (or, rath- 

 er, that of the farmer's) superficial. He 

 seems to think that the farmer who owns 

 the land has not even an equal right or claim 

 to the nectar with some other person who 

 has no property right in it, if, perchance, 

 such person happens to keep a few bees. 



* The hairs of the rest of the body of the bee are 

 branched, such hairs being characteristic of the entire 

 family of bees, the Apidiz. 



In the case referred to by the doctor, no 

 claim was made of exclusive right of the 

 farmer, but a denial of the exclusive right 

 of the bee-keeper. No objection of the 

 farmer's to Mr. Ethics' keeping his bees in 

 the neighborhood was made. If each farmer 

 could fence his farm against the outside 

 bees, I think no one would question his right 

 to the nectar, which, it seems to me, would 

 become as clearly his property as any thing 

 produced on his farm. But the fact is, it's 

 impossible to identify, trace, or control this 

 natural product; and it is well that it is so. 

 It is free, like the air we breathe, for every 

 one to appropriate. 



Dr. Miller seems to think the proposition 

 a strange one, that the farmer who owns the 

 land has the same moral right to keep bees 

 for the production of honey that he has to 

 keep cows for the production of butter and 

 cheese. Query: Hasn't he? who has a better 

 right? The matter of 'ownership by the 

 farmer is not the question to be considered 

 at all; but it is the exclusive right of the 

 pioneer bee-keeper to monopolize a given 

 territory. 



But, for the sake of the argum.ent, suppose 

 we grant his prior right, and that a law be 

 passed fixing all the pains and penalties for 

 the crime of overstocking, and that we have 

 an inspector of a given territory — the foul- 

 brood inspector might be transformed into a 

 sort of nectarometer for the purpose of regu- 

 lating the matter of overstocking, and to 

 protect the rights of the pioneer. How are 

 we to determine the minimum quantity of 

 surplus comb or extracted honey which shall 

 indicate that any given territory has been 

 overstocked? In some years the same locali- 

 ty furnishes much more nectar than in oth- 

 ers; in fact, it could scarcely be overstocked; 

 in others, no nectar at all, and bees require 

 feeding. 



Some have better success than others in 

 the same locality. One year (a rather poor 

 one) with a few colonies I was fortunate 

 enough to secure about 1000 lbs. of surplus, 

 while many of my neighbors with as many 

 or more bees got little or none at all. Those 

 who secui'ed none might claim that the locali- 

 ty was overstocked, while I might deny it. 

 With all the varied conditions of weather 

 and management, how are we ta regulate 

 this matter, anyhow? Some years it's im- 

 possible to overstock— tons of nectar going 

 to waste — then, again, none at all. and bees 

 have to be fed; even one colony might be de- 

 clared by the nectarometer as being kept in 

 violation of law. 



During a winter like the last, the bees of 

 the pioneer may have all died, and those of 

 the beginner last year (a good one for honey) 

 may have gone through the winter all right 

 and come out in splendid shape for business 

 this last spring; but the prospects this sea- 

 son are not flattering, and the nectarometer 

 rules that, under the law, the locality is 

 fully stocked. But here is our pioneer with 

 a lot of hives, frames of brood-combs, su- 

 pers, etc., which he does not know what to 

 do with. Now, here you are. The beginner 



