748 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Lowra aster's letter is : "Are they from 

 Tunis, Africa?" And the reply is as 

 follows : " We are acquainted with the 

 hees of Tunis, but do not know of the 

 existence of such a race as the so-called 

 Punic bees in that country." This 

 answer was given advisedly, for it was 

 very rational for Mr. Lowm aster to ask 

 if Punic bees came from Tunis, inasmuch 

 as he would, if a scholar, naturally asso- 

 ciate " Punic " with "Carthage," the site 

 of which city we know was not far from 

 Tunis. But — and this but was very im- 

 portant—I happen to know something 

 about the bees of Tunis, and I can, there- 

 fore, say with confidence that I do not 

 know of the existence of such a race as 

 the so-called Punic bees in that country. 

 I know of no race in that country 

 answering to the descriptions that have 

 been given of Punic bees. Nor do I 

 know of the existence of Avis niger m 

 that or any other country. The black 

 bees of Tunis, Algiers and Morocco are 

 all varieties of Apis mellijica. 



Then Mr. Pratt goes on to say that, 

 "In that same periodical for June 5, 

 1890, page 271, is a mention of Punic 

 bees, and where they come from (see 

 also British Bee Journal for May 29, 

 1890)." 



It is quite true the first mention of 

 Punic bees is in the British Bee Journal 

 for June 5, and the description there 

 given is from the person interested in 

 them, Mr. J. Hewitt, and he there states 

 "they came from North Africa, close to 

 the borders of the great Sahara desert." 

 (The British Bee Journal, with this 

 reference and others to follow, are here- 

 with forwarded). 



Now, sir, if this is sufSciently explicit 

 for Mr. Pratt, it is not for me. Scien- 

 tific men are not, as a rule, satisfied with 

 such vague definitions. What would you 

 think if we spoke of Professor Cook as liv- 

 ing in North America on the borders of 

 Canada? Would you consider that suffi- 

 cient to indicate his locality ? 



Not a word was said about Punic until 

 Oct. 23, page 511, when Mr. Hewitt 

 again writes under the title "Punic 

 Bees," a short paragraph of 15 lines, 

 referring to what some one had said in a. 

 gardening paper about them. In the 

 same paper, on page 512, Mr. J. Luck 

 asks for results respecting Punic bees. 



Now, the British Bee Journal has a 

 large circulation. I may say, without 

 ostentation, that it has a very large cir- 

 culation amongst bee-keepers, and is 

 read by, I can safely say, very many 

 more bee-keepers than all the other 

 papers that give occasional bits about 



bee-keeping put together. Yet this 

 appeal for results from those who had 

 tried Punics met with no response. No, 

 sir; not one letter for or against did we 

 receive to that appeal, and, consequently, 

 we had no opportunity of publishing 

 anything about them from any one but 

 Mr. Hewitt. 



No doubt Mr. Pratt is surprised that 

 t\iQ British Bee Journal refused to insert 

 an advertisement, but I do not publish 

 that journal for the purpose of making 

 money out of it by advertisements or in 

 any other way, and I reserve to myself 

 the right to accept or reject an adver- 

 tisement, or even an article. I am quite 

 at a loss to see why Mr. Pratt has 

 referred to the British Bee Journal for 

 May 29, unless it is to make people 

 .believe that Punics are written about 

 there, as well as in the number for June 

 5. Mr. Hewitt has an article headed 

 "A Revolution in Queen-Rearing — Win- 

 ter Dysentery," but there is no mention of 

 Punic bees, and he makes reference to a 

 "full report" of virgin queens, which 

 we have already alluded to, in the Record 

 for June, in which 10 out of 16 reports 

 are unfavorable. 



Mr. Pratt then goes on to say, " W^hy ? 

 Simply because Messrs. Cowan and 

 Carr did not know that Punic bees were 

 so hard to obtain from their native 

 clime." 



Now, sir, I think this is a most grave 

 charge to make against us, as it imputes 

 personal and unworthy motives in con- 

 cealing facts about Punic bees. I have 

 simply to say that there is not a shadow 

 of truth in it, and that it is a barefaced 

 invention. 



I shall dismiss the allusion to the 

 Journal of Horticulture \>y simply saying 

 that it is a gardening paper and not a 

 bee-periodical, and that for the same 

 charges that Mr. Pratt makes in your 

 journal, I have placed the matter in the 

 hands of my solicitors, pending an action 

 for libel against the editors of that 

 paper. 



I am obliged to you for publishing on 

 page 554 my views on African bees. I 

 have nothing to retract from what I 

 said, but I should like to add that 

 African bees have been for generations, 

 it is believed, cultivated in Europe in 

 perfect purity. 



Scientific men are not in the habit of 

 accepting anything without proof, and 

 simply on the ipse dixet of any individual, 

 and certainly, when marvellous stories 

 are told, they are all the more cautious. 



I trust you will give my refutation of 

 the charges made by Mr. Pratt the same 



