THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



277 



him or to him, Intake it iUl back, 

 apologize for it, and inetaphorically 

 ""smoke tlie pipe of peace "' with him. 

 Listowel, April 15, 1H82. 



For the American Bee Journal. 



Review of the Dzierzoii Theory. 



DR. WM. K. HOWARD. 



Judge W. H. Andrews wishes me 

 to tell the readers of the American 

 Bee Journal, whether I think that 

 the " Dzierzon Theory " necessarily 

 follows from the establishment of tlie 

 mvich cherished idea of parthenogene- 

 sis." 



The Dzierzon theory is a series of 

 propositions, 13 in number, being a 

 full elucidation of scientilic bee-cul- 

 ture, and is ably defended by the 

 Baron of Berlepsch, who adduces 

 many unquestionable facts in their 

 support. Propositions Nos. 8, 9, and 

 10 having direct reference to the pro- 

 duction of drones, are the principal 

 ones relating to parthenogenesis, the 

 subject now under consideration. 

 Proposition 9 is as follows : 



"All eggs germinated in the ovary of the queen 

 develop as miiles, unless impregnated by the 

 male sperm while passing the mouth of the semi- 

 nal sac or spermatheca, when descending tlie ovi- 

 duct. If they be thus impregnated in their down- 

 ward passage, (which impregnation the queen can 

 effect or omit at pleasure), they develop as 

 females.'* BB 



This proposition contains the most 

 peculiar and characteristic feature of 

 the Dzierzon theory. The Baron of 

 Berlepsch, from his interesting ex- 

 periments, came to the following con- 

 clusions in 185.5 : "Common queens 

 fecundated by Italian drones produce 

 mixed or hybrid workers indeed, but 



pure common drones, exclusively" 



" Still, " says the Baron, " tlie demon- 

 strative scientific proof of its correct- 

 ness was wanting." By the aid of 

 Profs. C. T. Von SieboldandR.Leuc- 

 kart, he was able to "demonstrate 

 the presence of spermatozoa in female 

 eggs and their absence in male eggs— 

 thus solving the interesting proDlem 

 scientifically, and settling the ques- 

 tion." 



I will now quote proposition 10 : 



" If a queen remain unfecundated. she ordinarily 

 does not lay eggs. Still c.vceplional case*; do oc- 

 cur : and the eggs then laid produce drones only." 



That these exceptional cases are 

 more common than was formerly sui> 



Eosed, is evident. This proposition 

 as direct connection with partlieno- 

 genesis, and if we admit the following 

 projxisitidii we admit the partheno- 

 geuesis all the way through : 



Prop. H. "The ovaries of the queen are not im- 

 pregnated in copulation: but a small vesicle or 

 sac which is situated near the termination of the 

 oviduct, and communicating therewith, becomes 

 charged with the semen of the drone." 



Many careful observers, sufficiently 

 competent, have come to the same 

 conclusions that the Baron of Ber- 

 lepsch did in 18.55 ; viz: that fecunda- 

 tion, pure or impure, does not affect 

 the drone progeny, regarding its 

 purity. L. L. Langstroth, L. C. Root, 

 the late and lamented M. Quinby, A. 

 I. Root, A. J. Cook, King and others 

 teach this ; and all offer the proof con- 

 tained in tlie above propositions. 



On the other hand we have many 



careful and practical experimenters 

 who, setting aside all tlieories, bring 

 up evidence which in its nature is 

 irrefutable, and cannot be explained 

 by the Dzierzon theory. For instance 

 it is held by them that the male and 

 female progeny are alike inrtuenced 

 by fecundation ; which the tlieory 

 might allow, but its best and ablest 

 advocates deny. 



As Mr. Andrews wishes to put 

 some one "on record," and claims 

 that the writers on the subject will 

 not do so, for his benefit, [ will give 

 him my views, not that 1 wish to have 

 any controversy witli him or anyone 

 else, but that he has asked it of me in 

 a polite manner, and I have not re- 

 fused. 



I have read the Dzierzon theory, 

 and have carefully examined it, with 

 the Baron of Berlepsch's experiments, 

 and taking it as a whole, it is the 

 most practically scientific work forso 

 few pages that I have ever examined. 

 There never has been such a series of 

 experiments given to the public, so 

 interesting, so exhausting, or so ex- 

 pansive ; if we will except our own L. 

 L. Langstroth, of this country. 



I may make some statements that 

 do not seen) in keeping with a be- 

 liever in the Dzierzon theory, yet if I 

 am skeptical I will give my reasons 

 as well as possible. 



That a fecundated queen is only 

 enabled to produce worker eggs, and 

 that this fecundation or fertilization 

 is the only advantage gained by sex- 

 ual union, oyer her virgin power and 

 usefulness, I must say that I do not 

 recognize as a iixed- fact, for several 

 reasons, some of which I will briefly 

 state : 



A drone-egg laying or unfecundated 

 queen, like a laying worker, deposits 

 her eggs promiscuously in botli drone 

 and worker cells, sometimes hundreds 

 in one cell. These eggs are disposed 

 of very irregularly from base to the 

 extent of the side-walls, there is not 

 that systematic arrangement, which 

 marks the work of a fecundated 

 queen— the brood in a compact circu- 

 lar cluster. She does not always ex- 

 amine the cell before depositing the 

 eggs, and will often deposit a score or 

 more in the same cell without chang- 

 ing her position ; her position while 

 depositing is not like that of a fertile 

 queen, almost any position suits her, 

 while a fertile queen invariably as- 

 sumes one position every time she de- 

 posits an egg, so far as my observa- 

 tions have been extended, and that 

 position, after carefully examining 

 the cell, she turns herself obliquely 

 across tlie comb the head inclined 

 downward, to the riy;ht or left, at the 

 same time curving her abdomen, in- 

 troducing it into tlie cell, withdraw- 

 ing it in about 5 seconds, leaving the 

 egg firmly attached to the base of the 

 cell. The drone-egg laying queen 

 and laying workers are not jealous 

 rivals, neither will these queens en- 

 gage in combat with each other as 

 readily as they once would have 

 done. Virgin queens are rivals until 

 they have completed their wedding 

 tours. I have had fourof these queens 

 and I don't know how many laying 

 workers all living peaceably in one 



hive, all having free access to the 

 same combs at the same time. The 

 conditions of these individuals are 

 the results of circumstances — influx 

 ences of early life. 



A virgin (lueen after having made 

 several unsuccessful bridal trips, 

 gradually loses her sexual propensi- 

 ties, and toward the last fails to at- 

 tract her aerial gallants, which under 

 ordinary circumstances are so quick 

 to respond, and after a time she 

 ceases to sally forth, and settles her- 

 self to become, if she ever lays at all, 

 a drone mother, a useless incumbent 

 in the hive, with no maternal cares, 

 short lived, even if allowed to run her 

 course. The ovaries are undeveloped ; 

 the spermatheca a useless appendage, 

 without muscular power, finally be- 

 comes .solid. The ovarian nervous 

 ganglion diminished in size forms a 

 mere apology for what it once was, or 

 might have been. She displays neither 

 gracefulness in motion, magnitude, 

 instinct or regality. Her progeny are 

 subjects of "agamic" reproduction, 

 living individuals produced without 

 the congress of the sexes — partheno- 

 genesis. 



A fecundated queen deposits her 

 eggs in regular order, except, some- 

 times when a young queen first be- 

 gins to lay, she may occa.sionally de- 

 posit 2 eggs in one cell,* and in rare 

 cases drone eggs in worker cells, 

 which is accounted for by some auth- 

 ors in this way : That the muscles of 

 these delicate organs are not well 

 practiced, or sufficiently developed by 

 training to give the queen the proper 

 control of them, which she afterward 

 acquires. I have noticed that a young 

 queen commencing to lay did not as 

 carefully examine the cells before de- 

 positing, as older queens, and some- 

 times I have noticed her to examine 

 one cell and lay in another, as if by 

 mistake, and this I had supposed to 

 be the cause of the frequency of 2 

 eggs in one cell. It has been stated 

 that queens deposit their eggs pro- 

 miscuously, and that the workers — 

 nurse bees perhaps— remove them 

 and systematically arrange them, and 

 one isolated case is cited to justify the 

 the assertion ; yet, as above stated, a 

 fecundated queen deposits her eggs 

 with precision. As the young fecun- 

 dated queen increases in age, she 

 gradually increases in size, assumes 

 a graceful appearance, exercises a 

 seeming maternal judgment, as her 

 cares increase, deposits eggs more or 

 less according to the influx of food 

 or necessity requires, always provi- 

 dent of the future welfare of the 

 colony by never leaving it hopelessly 

 queenless when accompanying a 

 swarm. [Who ever heard of a drone- 

 egg laying queen exercising any of 

 these traits ?] She has respectability 

 among her subjects, and allows no 

 rivals.! 



It will be seen that fecundation not 

 only qualifies a queen to lay worker 



• I have noticed cases wherein a good vigorous 

 queen has deposited '2 eggs in one cell when a 

 natural swarm had t>een placed in an empty hive, 

 and only constructed a few square inches or 

 comb, and it vet unHnished. 



■f I have in a few rare cases observed 2 queens, in 

 well regulated colonies, dwelling amicably to- 

 gether. 



