120 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



For tlie American Bee JournaL 



Tlie Theory of Parthenogenesis. 



DR. WM. R. HOWARD. 



As piier Americana has " dissected " 

 my article in the American Bee 

 Journal, vol. 17, page 290, and not 

 tried to compare the parts, or advance 

 any arguments to disprove them, I 

 will simply answer his questions, while 

 I examine his assertions. In Bee 

 Journal, vol. IS, page 42, he says : 



"I also deny (with Mr. Robinson) 

 that parthenogenesis is a fact proven 

 in nature." 1 will call his attention 

 to the last paragraph in the article 

 above referred to, in which I said : 

 " Now, since parthenogenesis or 

 agamic reproduction is the production 

 of living individuals, witiiout the 

 actual congress of the sexes, he is 

 compelled to admit the production of 

 drones by partlienogenesis." Now 

 mark, it is a well known fact, that vir- 

 gin queens and " fertile workers " do 

 lay eggs whicli produce living indi- 

 viduals, and no one has ever shown 

 that these workers liad been fecun- 

 dated by meeting the drones. Again, 

 he says : "All admit that the (|ueen 

 bee is not bisexual, therefore all her 

 eggs must be fertilized by the sperma- 

 tozoa of the male to produce truitful- 

 ness." If the queen bee is not bise.x- 

 iial then she must be asexual, or a 

 hermaplirodite, so called. If she is 

 not a bisexual insect what is tlie use 

 of congress of the sexes V I stated 

 that " fertilization of the female germ 

 by means of the male sperm, through 

 the congress of sexes, is the rule with 

 bisexual animals, but there are excep- 

 tions among insects." He says : 

 " asexual, i.e. without sex is not a law 

 in nature." I plainly defined the 

 meaning of the term as I used it, and 

 there certainly was no cause tor his 

 misconstruing it, viz : " The indi- 

 viduals in whom this budding process 

 takes place are called ' asexual,' be- 

 cause, though tiiey may resemble the 

 female sex outwardly, their sexual 

 organs are only partially developed." 



He denies the budding process al- 

 together. I ask hfm to explain the 

 reproduction of the aphis, taking 

 Huxley's 8 conclusions for his text. 

 He says tiiat "asexual " and "agamic" 

 are confined to " botanology " alone, 

 or " applied only to vegetable life ;"if 

 so, why are these terms so often em- 

 ployed by the best authorities in con- 

 nection witli animal life. He quotes 

 as if from my article, " eggs that you 

 wish to hatch must be left to the care 

 of the bees." I have read the article 

 over and over.and have overlooked it, 

 or it is not there. I find no such 

 language; thougli it is a truthful as- 

 sertion, there was no point under con- 

 sideration that demanded its imme- 

 diate presence. 



Again he says that "neuter cannot 

 be applied to workers, for they are 

 undeveloiied females." Neuter was 

 formerly applied to those hymenopte- 

 rous insects having females of dimor- 

 phic forms, in order to distinguish the 

 sexual form, or tliose wliich produced 

 true eggs, and capable of sexual semen 

 and fecundation, from tlie "asexual" 



form (neuter or worker ants and bees), 

 some of which have been known to 

 produce young without the interposi- 

 tion of the male. 



In conclusion, I will say that, in the 

 above, I have merely called attention 

 to the " dissected " article to prove 

 the points he refers to, and had he 

 carefully read it, and thoroughly 

 understood it, he would have Ijeen 

 spared the pains of even referring to 

 it, unless he could have advanced some 

 arguments to disprove ttie points 

 mentioned, or have given some evi- 

 dence to establish his own assertions. 

 Mere assertions, without any attempt 

 toward proof, are puerile in tlie main. 

 At "that well where truth lies hid- 

 den," we all hope toraeet—imer Amer- 

 icana. 



Kingston, Tex., Feb. 10, 1882. 



For the American Boo Journal. 



Wired Comb Foundation. 



E. T. FLANAGAN. 



The great advantage wired frames 

 possess over the un wired is so obvious, 

 that it is strange that the practice of 

 wiring all frames used in the brood 

 chamber, and for extracted honey, is 

 not more generally practiced. I know 

 that in many quarters there yet exists 

 a prejudice against wired foundation 

 and wired frames, but when the work 

 is properly done, and a fair trial given, 

 all prejudice vanishes. The great dif- 

 ficulty at first WHS to get wire, or 

 rather use wire, small enougli to be 

 fully imbedded in the septum, and yet 

 strong enougli to resist considerable 

 pressure, and, at the same time, free 

 from corrosion or rust. After many 

 trials, this was accomplished by the 

 use of tinned wire (No. 30 being the 

 best size). Yet, even with the ad- 

 vantage of proper wire success did 

 not always follow, owing to the inac- 

 curate manner the wire was placed in 

 the frames. 



When made by steam power, the 

 holes in the frames are pierced before 

 the bars are ripped out, and when 

 done properly, are as correct as could 

 be desired; but the majority of bee- 

 keepers make their own frames, and, 

 consequently, the holes have to be 

 made by hand, and it is almost an im- 

 possibility to do it correctly in that 

 way ; besides the labor and fatigue, 

 the time taken to pierce, say, (> holes 

 in each bar, or 12 to a frame, is very 

 great. After having pierced and 

 wired a large number of frames, and 

 finding the work not so accurate as I 

 desired, I obtained from F. B. Cliap- 

 man, of Scipioville, N. Y. (by the way 

 a successful bee man ), a little machine, 

 worked by hand, that lie calls a " bar 

 piercer," and I must say that after my 

 experience in making the holes by 

 hand, that I would not be wilhout 

 this machine for double its cost, could 

 I not get another. It is simple, accu- 

 rate, easily worked, and quite rapid in 

 execution. I pierced over 600 bars in 

 an hour, and done much better work 

 than was possible by hand. It can 

 be arranged to pierce as many boles as 

 are desired at one operation or stroke 

 of the lever or handle. Any one pos- 



sessing ordinary mechanical skill can 

 make one, and Mr. Chapman deserves 

 the good will of all who need such a 

 machine, for generously giving it to 

 the public. 

 Belleville, III., Feb. 1,1882. 



For the American Bee Journal. 



Wooden Separators for Sections. 



C. R. ISHAM. 



Mr. Editor : In your comments on 

 my remark that " the apiarists in this 

 part of New York, in the future, 

 would use wood separators in the place 

 of tin for surplus sections," you say 

 that, so far as your observation is con- 

 cerned, their use had not been a suc- 

 cess, and you should await with inter- 

 est reports from those using them the 

 coming season. 



My greatest success in apiculture 

 has been in getting comb honey for 

 the city market, and dates back to the 

 time I became a subscriber to the 

 Bee Journal, then edited and pub- 

 lished in Washington by the lamented 

 Samuel Wagner. 



I persisted in iiroducing comb honey 

 when Mr. A. I. Root was proclaiming 

 in Gleanings, that, with him, honey 

 boxes were tilings of the past, but who 

 afterward perfected machines for roll- 

 ing out foundation which created a 

 revolution in the profitable produc- 

 tion of box honey. 



My first experience witli separators 

 was in using thin, perforated boards. 

 I afterward used glass boxes with tin 

 corners, until a fire in June, 1879. de- 

 stroyed my buildings and most of my 

 machinery for manufacturing them. 

 With honey harvest at hand I adopted 

 the speediest method to secure sur- 

 plus going to waste, necessity com- 

 pelling me to use separators at an ex- 

 pense of some $40 or $nO for tin; but 

 just as soon as I could get my ma- 

 chinery to work. I commenced replac- 

 ing the tins with wood, and to-day 

 could not be induced to use tin for new 

 racks or frames, if it was furnished 

 to me free of cost! 



The facility in changing the size of 

 our sections to meet the demands of 

 trade is of no small consideration, as 

 it enables us to do so at comparatively 

 little expense. The one fact of its 

 giving a wider entrance, saying noth- 

 ing about wjirmth or cheapness, is 

 enough to commend their use to every 

 tliinking, practical apiarist, who is 

 engaged in producing honey for profit. 



When I see my views so strongly 

 conlirmed by such successful lioney 

 producers as Messrs. Newman & Son, 

 of Peoria; Messrs. Van Eaten & Rians, 

 of York; Stanley & Bro., of Wyoming, 

 and the Messrs. Benedicts, of Perry, 

 who, for the past several years, have 

 been producing box honey by car 

 loads, I feel that my position is (iracti- 

 cable, and that time and experience 

 will confirm, as a grand reality, that 

 which you now look upon as a doubt- 

 ful success. 



We took an advanced position in 

 advocating and using foundation for 

 surplus honey, when it was condemned 

 by Messrs. boolittle, Betsinger and 

 others at the Northeastern Conven- 



