1903.] PHILLIPS—-A REVIEW OF PARTHENOGENESIS. 206 
number of papers appeared in which the development of unfer- 
tilized eggs was described, but the importance of the observations 
was not recognized fully until after Dzierzon published his first 
paper. This paper, published in a bee journal, may well be 
looked on as the starting-point of the Theory of Parthenogenesis, 
since it started a very important discussion and marks the begin- 
ning of a host of work along similar lines. 
The most important papers of the period between 1745 and 1845 
will be found in the literature list at the end of this paper. It 
does not seem desirable to go into a detailed account of these 
earlier papers since, while they are valuable, the greatest additions 
to our knowledge of these phenomena have been made since the 
time named. 
As stated on a preceding page, more attention has been paid to 
the parthenogenesis of the Honey Bee, in the preparation of this 
paper, than to any other form. A full statement of the present 
state of our knowledge of the phenomena in this species will make 
clearer what follows concerning other species. 
THEORIES ON THE Honey BEE PREvIOUS TO 1845. 
Before discussing the various theories and experiments on the 
parthenogenetic development of the drone eggs of the common 
bee, it may be of interest, from the historical standpoint, to review 
briefly the various theories put forth previous to 1845 which were 
used to explain the peculiar phenomena observed in the hive in 
regard to the sex of the bees. Since the bee is of economic value 
it has been the object of much investigation for centuries, and for 
this reason the peculiarities of its development have long been 
known. 
Aristotle, in his A7storta animalium, wrote: ‘‘All persons are 
not agreed as to the generation of bees, for some say that they 
neither produce young nor have sexual intercourse ; but that they 
bring their young from other sources. . . . Other persons affirm 
that they collect the young of the drones from any of the sub- 
stances we have named (flowers of the honeysuckle, reed or olive), 
but that the rulers (queens) produce the young of the bees (work- 
ers). . . . Unless the ruler (queen) is present drones only are 
produced. Others affirm that they have sexual intercourse, and 
that the drones are males and the bees females.’’ In his De gene- 
ratione animalium he wrote: ‘‘ The drones develop in a queenless 
