AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



433 



"No. 3." — All crates filled with honey 

 not described in any of the foregoing 

 grades. 



The color of honey to be known as 

 " light," " amber" and "dark." The 

 crates to be unsoiled, but if otherwise, 

 the honey in such crates to be classed in 

 the next grade below the one indicated 

 in the instructions. In describing honey 

 we would then have " fancy white," 

 "fancy amber," "fancy dark;" and 

 "No. 1 white," "No. 1 amber," "No. 

 ldark;" and "No. 2 white," " No. 2 

 amber," and "No. 2 dark." 



Upon this point of color there has 

 been a great deal of contention, some 

 asserting that only white honey could 

 be called "Fancy" or "No. 1." There 

 are many people, however, that regard 

 buckwheat honey as the best honey ; to 

 them there would be fancy buckwheat 

 or dark honey. Tastes differ in this 

 respect, and the plan of calling only 

 white honey first-class will not be 

 feasible. 



When it is possible, to give the source 

 from which honey is gathered, might 

 answer instead of giving the color, if all 

 people were as well informed as bee- 

 keepers in regard to this matter ; but, 

 as it is, it is probably best to use the 

 words " white," " amber" and " dark." 



Uniform grades and terms will im- 

 prove the price. — AmericanAgriculturist. 



Scientific Ignorance About Bees. 



EEV. E. T. ABBOTT. 



My Dear Mr. York : — I hand you 

 herewith a copy of an article which I 

 mailed to the Atlantic Monthly. You 

 can make such use of it as you deem 

 best. Emerson T. Abbott. 



St. Joseph, Mo. 



[The following is the article referred 

 to in the above :1 



Permit me to offer my protest against 

 some of the statements made in Prof. 

 Evans' article in the February number 

 of the Atlantic. The Professor seems 

 to have a genius for making wild and 

 extravagant assertions in the name of 

 science (?), for this entire article is 

 filled to overflow with statements that 

 lead one of a skeptical turn of mind to 

 doubt, to say the least. 



I will leave it to others to criticise the 

 improbable stories he recites about 

 ravens, storks, etc., and confine my 

 criticisms to a field in which I have some 



right to speak with authority. If his 

 statements about birds may be spoken 

 of as improbable — and I think they may 

 — it will be putting it mildly to say that 

 the statements he makes about bees are, 

 most of them, absurd, and entirely un- 

 warranted in the light of facts as known 

 to every intelligent bee-keeper. 



SEVERAL LARVJE IN ONE CELE. 



Take the following: "In order to 

 provide for emergencies, several larvas 

 are reared in a single cell, which the old 

 queen is never permitted to approach." 

 It is a matter of great interest to every 

 bee-keeper, who has read this statement, 

 to know where the Professor got his 

 information. Surely, if it is a fact, he 

 is entitled to the honor of having made 

 an original and unique discovery. I am 

 fairly well acquainted with the reliable 

 literature on the subject of bee-culture, 

 and I am quite sure that this is the first 

 time I have ever chanced to meet a 

 statement like this. 



I also profess to know something 

 about the economy of a bee-hive, and I 

 am willing to risk my reputation for 

 truth and veracity on the statement that 

 no man, living or dead, ever knew more 

 than one larva at a time to be reared in 

 a cell. I should look upon this state- 

 ment of the Professor's as an attempt to 

 be funny, if I did not know that he had 

 the reputation of being a careful writer. 

 If this reputation was acqu'red by mak- 

 ing such wild and improbable assertions 

 as he does about bees, I confess it does 

 not speak well for the intelligence of his 

 readers. 



He tells us that the workers are " in- 

 capable of laying eggs ;" but they do lay 

 eggs all the same, and it is a question 

 whether there is a single worker-bee 

 living that cannot lay eggs under cer- 

 tain conditions. It is true, they do not 

 make a business of laying, to use the 

 parlance of the street, but this is not 

 proof that they can not. On the other 

 hand, we have abundant proof that they 

 can, and frequently do, lay eggs. 



HONEY-BEES IMPROVING THEIR METHODS. 



He informs us that the honey-bees 

 have "improved their methods of work 

 in the memory of man." This sounds 

 very plausible, and I have no disposition 

 to call in question the theory of evolu- 

 tion with which this statement is sup- 

 posed to be in harmony ; but the state- 

 ment itself, in my opinion, is not true. 



History has not recorded a single 

 radical change in the habits of bees. So 

 far as we know, they build their combs 



