598 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAu 



ii^«^*^4< 



Difference in Eggs of Impreg- 

 nated Queen and a Virgin. 



Query 843. — 1. Are the eggs in an impreg- 

 nated queen different in any way from those 

 of a virgin ? 2. If not, how do you account 

 for impure drones when these queens are 

 mated with drones of a different race ? 3. If 

 the eggs are in a different condition, then 

 does not the theory of parthenogenesis, as 

 applied to queen-bees, fall to the ground ?— P. 

 R. O. 



I do not know. — James A. Green. 



I leave this for Prof. Cook to tell us. — 

 Mrs. J. N. Heater. 



1. Yes, they are fertilized. 2 and 3. 

 Too deep for me. — Eugene Secor. 



1. No. 2. Don't know. 3. It cer- 

 tainly would seem so. — C. H. Dibbern. 



This question is too much for me. I 

 am not posted, in practice. — E. France. 



1. I have failed to see any difference. 

 2. Your queen may be impure. — H. D. 

 Cutting. 



1. Not while in the apiary. 2. I don't 

 account for it, neither do I believe it. — 

 C. C. Miller. 



The drone eggs are not affected by the 

 impregnation of the queen. If the 

 queen is pure blooded, drones reared by 

 her will be pure also. — Mrs. L. Harri- 

 son. 



1. The worker eggs are different, be- 

 ing impregnated, the drone eggs are not. 

 2. If the drones are impure, it is because 

 their mother is impure. 3. Bosh. — R. 

 L. Taylor. 



1. I am not aware that the eggs in an 

 impregnated queen are different from 

 those in a virgin, until the eggs are 

 changed by contact with the impregnat- 

 ing fluid. This answers 2 and 3. — A. 

 B. Mason. 



Without going into detail, I would say 

 that I consider the drones from a mis- 



mated queen pure enough for all prac- 

 tical purposes ; but for " breeding to the 

 feather," I should want the drones to 

 come from a queen which had mated 

 with a drone of her own strain of 

 "blood." — G. M. Doolittle. 



1. There is no difference until after 

 they are fertilized. 2. If the queen is 

 full-blood — pure — her drones will be 

 pure, although she may have met an im- 

 pure drone in copulation. — J. P. H. 

 Brown. 



After they are laid they are, as they 

 are impregnated, and will hatch workers 

 or queens as well as drones, at the will 

 of the bees. I don't see any "upset" to 

 the theory of parthenogenesis. — James 

 Heddon. 



1. I think so. 3. The only part of 

 the theory of parthenogenesis that is 

 true is the simple fact that a laying 

 worker or a virgin queen may lay eggs 

 that will produce non-virile or worthless 

 drones. — G. L. Tinker. 



1. The supposition is that they are 

 not, but are impregnated as they are 

 laid. 2 and 3. These questions open up 

 the whole theory of " parthenogenesis," 

 which to-day is too well settled to allow 

 of discussion as to its correctness. — J. 

 E. Pond. 



P. R. O. cannot cause the theory of 

 parthenogenesis to fall to the ground by 

 any such arguments. It has withstood 

 worse storms than this. After P. R. O. 

 experiments a little more fully, he will 

 find that parthenogenesis is not a theory, 

 but a fact. — Dadant & Son. 



1. Certainly. 2. A virgin queen will 

 produce drones (unsexed, or unfertile) 

 without impregnation, and when ferti- 

 lized she will produce perfect ones — 

 showing a sexual connection ; which an- 

 swers your question. 3. They are the 

 same eggs, under different conditions. — 

 W. M. Barnum. 



1. If I understand the question, I 

 would say no ; while the eggs remain in 

 the queen there is no difference. 2. I 

 do not account for it. It has not been 

 proved that in a case like that there are 

 any impure drones. Science says there 

 are not, and experience has not proved 

 the contrary. 3. They are not in a dif- 

 ferent condition, and parthenogenesis 

 stands. — M. Mahin. 



According to Dr. Dzierzon, they are 

 not, but receive the fertilizing contents 

 on its passage through the oviduct, and 

 by the seminal sac or "spermatheca." 



