280 



THE AMERICAIS BEE JOURNAL. 



(either patent or honorary), let us see 

 it by all means ; but claims that rest 

 with any one's veracity, are not safe 

 guides outside of United Stats courts, 

 and not then, in many cases. Let him 

 who claims it is in print, furnish it. 



I was, some weeks ago, made aware 

 of what Mr. Dadaut cites, but ttiat 

 cannot and does not in any sense 

 anticipate any of my claims. My 

 patent claims are outside of it, and 

 my honorary claims to the invention 

 are based upon the fact that I knew 

 no more of these old discarded de- 

 vices than did Prof. Cook and others, 

 and a dead past can in no way antici- 

 pate a living present. 



But some may inciuire, " Will your 

 new hive live V" I reply — I am will- 

 ing to leave that to the bee-keepers of 

 to-day. They are testing it. Let us 

 await their decision. "Letthedead 

 bury the dead," and the present test 

 the living. 



I have read Mr. Kretchmer's reply 

 on page 2(;.5, and I still affirm that 1 

 made no mistake in my report of Mr. 

 Kretchmer's patent. The 28th line 

 of his specitications reads thus, as 

 you say, Mr. Editor : " The bottom- 

 board G of the box is permanently 

 attached to the sides." There is 

 nothing double about the brood- 

 chamber. There is no "honey-board," 

 nor " metal strips " with frames 

 resting thereon. Mr.K. says that it is 

 " capable of being inverted." In one 

 sense this is true, and in another it is 

 not. Any hive might be inverted, 

 even by the wind. This hive is by no 

 means practically invertible. Wedges 

 will not support frames wlien in- 

 verted, and the bee spaces would be 

 thrown all out of position. Mr. K's 

 patent plainly states the purpose of 

 these wedges, as follows : 



"I insert a wedge- shaped piece of lath for the 

 purpose of closing the crevices between tile 

 frames, so as to prevent the bees from depositing 

 their bee-glue between the frames, and to leave 

 no crevice for heat to escape, or where moth 

 might obtain a lodging-phice." 



The objects sought to gain by the 

 invention are plainly set forth in the 

 speciOeatinns, and not one word is 

 said about inverting or interchanging 

 any of the parts of the hive, and no 

 such action is practically possible. The 

 drawings also show that the bottom- 

 board is " permanently attached to 

 the .sifZcs"— not to the side ! 



Agaui I assert that in this patent 

 cited by Mr. Kretclimer, there is not a 

 single feature in any way anticipating 

 tny invention. There is no double brood- 

 chamber, but one deep one. I would 

 willingly leave the matter to Mr. R.L. 

 Taylor, who is a lawyer, and also a large 

 and expert bee-keeper. I mention him 

 because lie is in every way fitted to 

 judge, and was mentioned by Prof. 

 Cook in fUeanings. 



Orj page 2-59,' Mr. Editor, I think 

 you do us injustice. I see no just 

 comparison in vnur "chameleon 

 story." The hive that Mr. K. has 

 just sent you is not evidence in this 

 case. What we demand is some sort 

 of proof that is self-evident, and that 

 is no doubt what is demanded by 

 Messrs. Alves and Cook. 

 (Jin Mr. Kretchmer's last paragraph, 

 he says that since then he has care- 

 fully examined my hive, system and 



patent. He should have done this 

 before he wrote. There is hardly a 

 bee-keeper in the country who yet 

 thoroughly and entirely understands 

 all the functions of the hive in ques- 

 tion. Mr. K. says " special system " 

 and " particular construction." Let 

 me say to Mr. K. and all, that my 

 invention covers vastly more ground 

 than a single " particular construc- 

 tion " or "special" line of manage- 

 ment. A thousand hives might be 

 constructed, all characteristically dif- 

 ferent, every one of which might 

 infringe my invention. 



Two-thirds of all that has been 

 written witli a view to uprooting my 

 invention, has really had no bearing 

 upon the subject whatever. In the 

 United States courts we should be 

 compelled to give more or less weight 

 to the sworn statements of witnesses 

 against the novelty of the hive, and 

 that testimony would weigh accord- 

 ing to its reasonableness and the in- 

 tegrity of the witness, as can be shown 

 from what lie has said and written 

 before ; and even then perjury may do 

 injustice; but here, in a bee-paper, 

 nothing amounts to evidence worthy 

 of consideration, except what can be 

 shown in public print. 



Dowagiac, 9 Mich. 



For the American Bee JournaL 



Fertilization of Flowers, 



J. F. LATHAM. 



As a farewell to the subject I wish 

 the indulgence to inform Mr. S. D. 

 Webster that, in my opinion, his 

 quotation, on page 203, from my arti- 

 cle on page 1.53, embodied an allusion 

 to a living principle in the economy 

 of Nature— a molecular affinity or 

 co-relation of organic entites — a con- 

 necting-link between the animal 

 and vegetable species, and the lower 

 the descent in the scale of existence 

 the more prominent it becomes, as 

 evidence of the — beginning. 



I believe that is a settled conclusion 

 among geologists, that the vegetable 

 species commenced their rounds of 

 development prior to the animal 

 species ; and. at the compatible grade 

 of their development, furnished the 

 entites from which the animal races 

 have evolved. But the precise point 

 in the development of cosmic matter 

 at which evolution commenced, is 

 beyond the reach of human investiga- 

 tion. The Great First Cause, like the 

 symbolical fruit of Paradise, is 

 guarded from man's irreverent touch ; 

 he can find out the Universal Life- 

 Giver— the Fructifying Power, but 

 not unto perfection. He can see in 

 the phosplioresceiit glow of the 

 steamer's path, as it dashes through 

 the briny waves, evidence of the 

 existence of the molecules of future 

 entites. He can see in the "jelly- 

 fish," as,it lloats in the calm waters of 

 the land-locked estuary, maintaining 

 in its movements the impetus im- 

 parted to it by the waves of the open 

 sea, an entity from the path of the 

 steamer on a round development. 

 Its food is the elements from which 

 it originated, its organism but a 



degree in advance of the vegetable, 

 and its animal functions being but 

 the power of volition, imparting to 

 it but the impetus to maintain exist- 

 ence where the strictly veget- 

 able entity would perish. Divide 

 it into pieces, and each fragment 

 becomes a distinct entity in the sphere 

 of its progenitor. Will not this pro- 

 cess of organic growth hold good 

 when applied to the method of devel- 

 opment of all the species of animate 

 life which inhabit the great deepV 



But, we are not compelled to search 

 the ocean for a manifestation of the 

 Life-power; it is all around us. It 

 permeates the rivers and rills, lakes 

 and ponds as well; and there is 

 scarcely if at all, a vegetable which 

 springs from the earth, but that 

 furnishes support to the infant entites 

 of living, moving forms— future 

 animals and insects. So it is plainly 

 evident that we are not wholly 

 indebted to the testimony of the rocks 

 when seeking to unveil the attinity of 

 animal and vegetable existence— the 

 co-habitation, so to speak, of the posi- 

 tive and negative, or active and passive 

 forces, which represent the propagat- 

 ing agencies, as displayed in the 

 attributes of the universal-spiritual, 

 and universal-material principles ; 

 cosmologically unfolded in the vivify- 

 ing expanding impulses of nature, in 

 endless evolution. 



The bees and the breeze may con- 

 vey the fecundating element from 

 flower to flower, but fructification can 

 be accomplished only when the ele- 

 mental conditions are susceptible of 

 molecular assimilation. This— as I 

 believe it to be — bottom fact from the 

 occult store-house of Nature, the con- 

 nection of animal and vegetable life- 

 seems to exercisea more subtile influ- 

 ence in matters pertaining to some of 

 the vital elements of bee-keeping 

 than at first thought it may be sup- 

 posed to exercise ; for had it been 

 pi'opei'ly understood, the "pollen 

 theory" would never have been, and 

 the disciples of the " hibernation the- 

 ory" would have sought elsewhere 

 than a hollow-tree, for the basic prin- 

 ciple evinced in the winter repose of 

 the hive-bee. 



I see nothing in Prof. Cook's kindly 

 notice of my article, page 188, origin- 

 al with the Professor, that appears to 

 substantially confiict with my state- 

 ments. Both tend to the same point. 

 In short, I feel gratified in being sus- 

 tained by so eminent an authority. 

 But I am not prepared to believe with 

 " all botanists," that gaily variegated, 

 or showy uni-colored petals are 

 assumed by the floral species for the 

 |iurpose of inducing insects to their 

 lianquetsof sweets, or stores of pollen 

 for the purpose of accomplishing their 

 fecundation. Chemical constituents 

 produce showy unicolored petals in 

 the floral species, and hybridizing, or 

 cross-fertilization, will result in varie- 

 gation. Showy flowers may be more 

 prominent in attractiveness, than 

 plain ones, and thereby "fool" the 

 bees at times, as I think I have 

 observed ; but nectar and pollen are 

 the substantial allurements, and the 

 appetite and habits of the insects the 

 prompters of their visits, thereby 



