i'HE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



469 



credit of tlie drone. Dr. Duncan 

 translated Blancluird, and quite inno- 

 cently, and very pardonably, repeated 

 Blanchard's blunder; while Cook, 

 who has taken many of the illustra- 

 tions in Part I of his Manual from 

 Duncan, continues to the present 

 houi-, to publish the error. Surely, 

 after eleven editions, the time has 

 come for breaking the spell, and 

 giving the queen her own legs back 

 again." 



Novir, in view of all this, Mr. Iled- 

 doii will surely admit that it is '• pos- 

 sible " even •' that a man like Prof. 

 Cook "may be mistaken, as well as 

 trther folks. 



I now proceed to perform the other 

 half of my task, and will show that 

 Prof. Cook, when trying to establish 

 the pollen theory actually knocked it 

 in the head, and gave it its " quietus.^^ 

 Here I must complain of being only 

 partially quoted by Mr. Ileddon. I 

 do not accuse him of wilfully sup- 

 pressing any part of my argument — 

 he is incapable of that — but he has 

 overlooked what I regard as a most 

 important substantiation of my 

 " claims ;" probably from not viewing 

 the matter in the same light that I 

 do. He says : "Mr. Clarke tells us 

 that the pollen theory went down 

 when Prof. Cook stated that bees 

 could not breed without pollen, and 

 that we know that they do breed in 

 confinement, and come out in good 

 health in the spring. Why, certainly, 

 we kneyp this before the pollen theory 

 was conceived, and this fact in no 

 way disproves that theory." But this 

 is only half of what I stated on page 

 293. Here is the whole sentence : 

 " He " (Prof. Cook) " has maintained 

 that bees cannot breed without pol- 

 len, and that they cannot stand ^i:ork 

 without it." Mr. Heddon says : " Bees 

 making chyme to feed brood, do not 

 consume the pollen, for two different 

 individuals cannot both eat the same 

 food." The reply I made to this plea 

 at Detroit was that when mothers 

 chew food and give it to their infants, 

 they are not very particular about 

 swallowing some of it, and, in fact, 

 often do swallow a portion. But, I 

 said, apart from this, when bees are 

 rearing brood they worJc hard, they 

 are not in that inactive state in which 

 they can do without such food as is 

 needed to repair wasted tissue. Con- 

 sequently, they must and do consume 

 pollen for their own wants, when they 

 rear brood. 



Here is the argument which I turned 

 against him in Prof. Cook's own 

 words : 



" As honey contains no albuminous 

 food, except the pollen in it, it follows 

 that bees must have bee-bread to 

 rear brood, and also to preserve their 

 organisms intact during the busy part 

 "f their existence To say that bees 

 may breed with no bee-bread, or that 

 the active workers need none, is to say 

 that you can have an ocean without 

 water, a desert without sand, or 

 bricks without clay." 



I asked, " Is it not a busy part of 

 their existence " when bees rear 

 brood ? Are they not then in the 

 active working condition V If so, 

 they must have pollen, and the fact 



that they rear brood largely in winter 

 quarters, proves that they can and do 

 consume pollen safely, which knocks 

 the bottom out of the theory. 



Mr. Ileddon appears to prefer that 

 his bees should not breed when in 

 winter confinement. Mr. Hall, on 

 the other hand, considers it essential 

 to his success to have plenty of brood 

 in the hives when he takes them out 

 of the cellar. His bees are impris- 

 oned longer than Mr. Ileddon's, and 

 on Mr. Ileddon's theory, must be sub- 

 ject to greater fecal distension, yet 

 they consume pollen freely, for they 

 rear brood largely. Notwithstanding, 

 they winter with a very small per- 

 centage of loss. " How isthisthusly," 

 if the pollen theory be true V The 

 conundrum is too hard for me. 



Here I cannot resist the temptation 

 of turning Mr. Ileddon's own tlank. 

 In his report of a year ago last April, 

 he said : " 1 am quite positive that 

 there is something about breeding, 

 whether in confinement or when tlie 

 bees fly regularly, which is very de- 

 pleting to them." That is to say, a la 

 Cook, it causes great waste of tissue, 

 to repair which they must have pollen. 

 In a recent article Mr. Ileddon quotes 

 my statement to the effect that bees 

 breed in confinement, and come out in 

 good health in the spring. Then he 

 sets up a little " crow," and says 

 triumphantly : " Why, certainly, we 

 knew this before the pollen theory 

 was conceived, and this fact in no 

 way disproves that theory." He says 

 in that same article in the American 

 Bee Journal for April 8, 188.5, that 

 he can adduce abundant evidence 

 that bees can breed " hivefuls " of 

 of young brood while in confinement, 

 without becoming loaded with fecal 

 matter. Now let us put all this to- 

 gether, and see what a " crazy quilt " 

 of an argument it makes : 



1. If bees consume pollen to any ex- 

 tent while in winter confinement, 

 they will get " the all-destructive 

 diarrhea." 2. If they rear young brood 

 they must eat pollen, for (Mr. Hed- 

 don) "brood-rearing is very deplet- 

 ing;" (Prof. Cook) "it causes great 

 waste of tissue," and " they can no 

 more breed without pollen than 

 bricks can be made without clay." 

 3. But, there is ample evidence (Mr. 

 Heddon) that bees can breed "hive- 

 fuls ''of young brood while in con- 

 finement, without becoming loaded 

 with fecal matter ; i. e., without get- 

 ting the diarrhea. 



Instead of harmonizing this fact of 

 breeding in confinement with the 

 pollen theory, Mr. Heddon goes off at 

 a tangent to discuss dry feces. About 

 all he does, however, is to quote the 

 Professor, who says with an air that 

 would well become the Great Mogul 

 of apiculture, when we appoint that 

 potentate, " There is no foundation 

 in the dry feces theory, I am sure." 

 Again, "bees do not normally void 

 feces in the hive, and never dry 

 FECES." That settles it, unless, in- 

 deed, this should prove to be one of 

 "several statements which are 

 astoundingly inaccurate," such as 

 according to Mr. F. Cheshire, Prof. 

 Cook is sometimes betrayed into. 



Mr. Heddon wandered off in a simi- 

 lar manner from the pollen theory to 

 the question of dry feces in his la.st 

 year's report. lie says : " Let us all 

 thank the Professor for setting us 

 aright in this respect." In what re- 

 spect 'r' The true functions of the 

 "sucking-stomach," using, Mr. Che- 

 shire tells us, an old, but extremely 

 misleading title, for he adds, " this 

 wrinkled meml)rane could no more 

 exert suction than could a balloon 

 extract gas from the main." After 

 this outburst of thankfulness for 

 nothing, Mr. Heddon quoted the dog- 

 matic assertions to which he has 

 again treated us in his recent repori . 

 I replied at some length to these posi- 

 tive utterances in the American Bee 

 Journal for May 27, 188-5. It is 

 needless to repeat what was then and 

 there said. The argument remains 

 unanswered, and, as I believe, for 

 the best of all reasons, viz., that it is 

 mumswerahle. 



Guelph, Ont. 



Southern Planter. 



A (jrape-Grower Defeniiing tlie Bees. 



O. M. CLAY. 



For long years in the United States 

 many species of wood-peckers were 

 called " sap-suckers," a name un- 

 known to European scientists, where- 

 as the so-called sap-suckers were 

 wood-peckers, enlarging the orifice of 

 holes made by the borers, in order 

 with their barbed tongues to pull out 

 the grubbs or larvse, and eat them. I 

 had a hard struggle here to over- 

 throw this popular error and to prove 

 that the wood-peckers (the " sap- 

 suckers ") were the best friends of 

 the horticulturist, though eating some 

 fruit. 



So, now, after long years of culture 

 of bees and grapes, through nearly 

 three-quarters of a century, I am of 

 the fixed opinion that bees do not and 

 cannot puncture fruit. Let us look 

 at this question at first a priori. As 

 bees multiply so rapidly, and are 

 armed with stings and poison to 

 destroy their enemies, what would be 

 the result if bees could puncture 

 fruit V They would, of course, attack 

 fruit, as more easily done, rather than 

 seek flowers for honey — and destroy 

 all sweet kinds in a short time. 

 Nature provides for equilibrium in 

 the production and maintenance of 

 general and species. 



For a long term of years I have had 

 bees in the third story of my dwelling, 

 and grape-vines, on the walls ; and 

 thus I have great opportunities for 

 observation. I am also a cultivator ' 

 of water-melons. When I cut the 

 melons I leave the rinds near the 

 house till evening for the bees to suck 

 the juices, of which they are very 

 fond. A few first find the melons ; 

 then they increase in numbers till 

 the whole colony seems to be engaged 

 in carrying off the treasure to their 

 store-room. 



Now if the bees could puncture 

 the grapes, one being found, as the 

 grape is much richer in sugar than 



