MUTILATION OF BEES. 
J. A. HARVIE-BROWN, F.R.S.E. 
Larbert. 
REFERRING to Mr. J. W. Carter’s note on ‘ The Mutilation of 
Bees,’ in ‘ The Naturalist ’’ for Dec. (pp. 426-427), some years 
ago I recorded a somewhat similar, if not identical phenomenon. 
Under a lime tree in full flower, which overhangs our avenue, 
my wood-forester found hundreds of bees mutilated in a similar 
manner to that which Mr. Carter describes, and brought me 
to thes ot to wi nessit Under that lime tree the ground was 
strewn so thickly with dead and dying bees, that one could not 
put down one’s foot without crushing many at a time. The 
mutilation consisted in the complete removal of the abdomen, 
but I did not observe that the thorax had been attacked. 
Desirous to find out the cause, my man went up the tree. 
He did not report that any wasps were seen, but he found the 
whole branches and foliage covered with innumerable large 
red ants, known as ‘ Soldier Ants.’ Rightly or wrongly, we 
put down the serious mutilation of the bees to the attacks of 
these big red ants, and it is worthy of notice at the same time, 
that other lime trees, both upon the line of the avenue, and 
close to the house, though also in full flower and ‘ humming’ 
with innumerable bees, appeared to be perfectly immune— 
‘or untouched at least—by those ants. It was only on the one 
tree where the phenomenon was observed. 
In Mr. Carter’s communication the mystery was certainly 
cleared up, and the agents discovered in the wasps; but in 
the case I reported at the time, and repeat now, the agent 
appeared to be the large red Soldier Ants. At first we thought 
it must have been some bird, but no birds were seen on the tree. 
The question now arises, are both Wasps and Soldier Ants 
inimical to bees under similar circumstances? 
OF: 
MUTILATED BEES. 
MARY L. ARMITT, 
Rydal, Westmorland. 
Mr. CARTER’S notes upon the death of Bumble Bees under lime 
trees is of very great interest, as establishing the fact conclu- 
sively that wasps are the cause of it in many instances, if not 
in all. Conviction of this came to me on slighter grounds 
(See © Naturalist, 1900, p. 270, following a previous note) 
from the sight, on July 19th, 1889, of numbers of bees that lay 
IgiI Jan. I. 
