THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW, 



when ingredients and proportions are the 

 same. This last is a somewhat recent dis- 

 covery of chemistry but is well established. 

 It is not surprising at all. No one would ex- 

 pect two machines to be identical just be- 

 cause each contained the same number of 

 ounces of wood and the same number of 

 ounces of iron. The putting together often 

 makes a world of difiference. So I say that 

 the sugars, already a numerous group, are 

 likely to stand as much more numerous when 

 chemistry has completed its work. The 

 best authorities in England have long pro- 

 tested vigorously against the use of white 

 sugar from the beet for bee feeding pur- 

 poses. When chemistry finally owns up that 

 the main saccharose of beet sugar and the 

 main saccharose of sugar from the cane 

 plant are not identical then we shall begin 

 to get our house founded on the rock. If I 

 am right the taste of the two is not identi- 

 cal. And how about the behavior of the two 

 under the candy maker's art, is there not a 

 difiference ? So the claim that the two re- 

 sults when these sugars are used as bee diet 

 are not identical has outside support — and 

 this 'ere Czar of all wisdom advises chem- 

 istry to own up at once. But let us get back 

 from our digression. Beside the division 

 into glucoses and saccharoses there is a cross 

 division into dextroses (turning light to the 

 right) and levuloses (turning light to the 

 left) but, if I infer rightly, all the saccha- 

 roses yet recognized fall in the dextrose 

 class. By the way I am not sure that chem- 

 istry yet admits that there is but one levu- 

 lose. Sugars are also classified into reduc- 

 ing sugars and non-reducing sugars, accord- 

 ing to their behavior toward the salts of cop- 

 per. The reducing sugars are in the main 

 the same as those known as glucoses ; but 

 whether these two classes are exactly the 

 same as to each individual member is not 

 made entirely clear to my noddle. Lots of 

 chances to get confused in the jabber of dif- 

 ferent chemists about the sugars. 



The examination of the nectar of nine 

 kinds of flowers is given. In fuchsia, clay- 

 tonia, honeysuckle {Lonicera) and lavender 

 the sugars known as cane are more than half 

 the total ; while in red clover, everlasting 

 pea, vetch, monkshood and crown imperial 

 the opposite state of things prevails. Fuchsia 

 seems rather to stand by itself for its rich- 

 ness in cane sugars, more than three quar- 

 ters of the total, while the red clover is pret- 

 ty strongly the other way, just about one- 



third to two-thirds. The usual proportion 

 of water is stated as between 60 and 65 per 

 cent. — yet sometimes 95 per cent., and what 

 is most surprising, sometimes almost no 

 water at all. Extra floral nectars, that is 

 those which the plant puts out elsewhere than 

 from within a flower, are stated to have a 

 generally less proportion of cane sugar than 

 the floral nectars. I supposed it was the 

 other way. The remarkable fact is given 

 that a plant cannot assimilate sugar in the 

 saccharose form any more than an animal 

 can. The plant often stores up sugars in 

 the saccharose form, but when the time 

 comes for them to be assimilated they are 

 changed into the glucose form. This ex- 

 plains why maple syrup will not granulate 

 after the growth of the buds gets well start- 

 ed, glucose in it. 



Now as to the finished honey. Bonnier 

 notes that although in general there is but a 

 faint proportion of cane sugar left in it, that 

 produced in mountain regions sometimes 

 has considerable. Prof. Cook suggests that 

 such samples are gathered too rapidly for 

 bees to have time to change it all. It seems 

 that the ugly fact is confessed, both in Eu- 

 rope and America, that the honey from in- 

 sect secretions (from the pine especially) is 

 quite similar to floral honey adulterated with 

 glucose. At length the chemists rather tim- 

 idly think that they can discriminate. In 

 Prof. Cook's test of the chemists by sending 

 them r>(j samples of diverse honeys and 

 frauds, numbers 12, 27 and 45 which were 

 mainly of insect origin passed unsuspected 

 of being anything else than good honey. A 

 rogue's mixture of commercial honey and 

 commercial glucose, or one of honey and 

 sugar syrup is easily detected — which is 

 something to be thankful for. I think Prof. 

 Cook flagrantly wrong in saying that honey 

 dew will never be put upon the market. 

 Strikes me we had plenty of very mean bark- 

 louse honey on the market not many years 

 ago. The B%dletin is sent free to Michigan 

 folks — guess if you tell 'em yon take a Mich- 

 igan bee paper that will make you a Mich- 

 igan folk — enough to fetch it. Address, 

 The Secretary, Agricultural College, Mich- 

 igan. 



The General round up 



The most striking things in the surround 

 this time are the failures. Simmins' theory 

 that fertile queens never fight is knocked 

 out ; and so (more is the pity) is Langdon's 



