EMG aR he sry mens 
Bibliographical Notices. 371 
found their way into popular works, we cannot blame him for his 
choice. 
Mr. Samuelson’s treatise on the Honey-Bee may be regarded as 
a popular Monograph of that insect; that is to say, he not only de- 
scribes its external appearance and general habits, but enters minutely 
into its anatomy and physiology, discussing its instincts and various 
operations at considerable length. With the assistance of the figures, 
most of which are good, the reader may investigate the whole struc- 
ture, internal and external, of the Bee, and thus gain a better general 
knowledge of the machinery by which the functions of insect life are 
performed than could be obtained by the same amount of labour in any 
other way. The structure of the eyes, antennze, and oral organs, of 
the legs and wings, and of the segments of the body, is clearly de- 
scribed ; and as the functions of each part are referred to en passant, 
these details are relieved from that dryness which might otherwise 
accompany a purely anatomical description. We have, however 
noticed one or two slight errors and omissions in this Part, to which 
we may call attention. Thus, at page 9, Mr. Samuelson seems to 
intimate that each of the maxille is employed as a separate “‘trowel- 
shaped blade” in plastering and moulding the wax ; which, we think, 
is hardly the case, any more than that they are employed as a pair 
of scissors for clipping the thin wax of the cells, as would seem to be 
implied by statements on pp. 36 and37. The use of the mandibles in 
working the wax does not appear to be referred to, although, as far as 
our recollection serves, these are important organs in the architectural 
operations of the Bee. In describing the differences between the Drones 
and the two kinds of female Bees, our author has omitted all mention 
of the additional joint in the antennz of the former, nor do we find 
this referred to in his description of the antenne. From the large 
size of the eyes in the Drones, Mr. Samuelson argues (p. 28) that we 
must suppose them to have some duty to perform in the hive; but 
we think that, considering the number of cases in which a similar 
excessive development of the visual organs occurs in the males of 
Insects, although we cannot see the reason for it, this argument of 
design will hardly hold, and the “‘ male sex” of the Honey-Bee must 
submit contentedly to the charge of being “of no use in the house,” 
which is often brought by their partners against males far higher in 
the scale of organization. 
Mr. Samuelson’s account of the mode of formation of the comb is 
of course founded to a great extent upon the labours of his prede- 
cessors, and contains nothing new ; it is, however, well put together, 
and will prove interesting to the reader. In treating of the cause of 
the hexagonal form of the cells, our author inclines to the theory 
that this form is produced in consequence of the mechanical condi- 
tions under which the cells are built, as opposed to the assumption 
either of a special instinct prompting the workers to make hexagonal 
cells, or of some condition in the structure of the Bees which renders 
this form the necessary result of their labours. In this view he is 
no doubt correct, as the principal evidence certainly tends to show 
that the hexagonal form of the cells is caused by a process analogous 
