1903.] PHILLIPS—A REVIEW OF PARTHENOGENESIS. 279 
duced.’’ (2) The queen also lays eggs producing females which 
resemble the queen or are female workers or mothers of the drones. 
The working bees are partly male and partly female and are derived 
from the queen. On the other hand the drones are from a mother 
drone, as follows: A mother drone copulates with a great male 
drone and lays only drone eggs which develop as small drones or 
as great drones (like their sire). Needless to say, a theory of this 
kind had many opponents. 
4. Voigt and Lucas. These men separately maintained that the 
queen is the mother of all the bees, laying in six months of the 
year an almost incredible number of fertilized eggs, from which in 
twenty to twenty-four days are produced common workers which are 
both male and female. The males dy thetr mouths fructify not only 
the queen but common female workers or mother drones, and from 
eggs laid by the latter in May and June drones are developed. 
This fructifying or vivification of all these eggs is performed and 
executed by the principle of life or by the animating creative 
spiritual power, aura seminalis, contained in the spittle, the process 
of which is so very visible in the frequent application of the pro- 
boscis of the common male bees to that of the queen. This theory 
was based on the facts that workers and queens can compose a per- 
fect hive without adding drones and that workers produce drones. 
5. Haumann maintained that the queen is the only mother of 
her like and of workers and drones. The bees (workers) are 
nurses and co-operate in breeding, and without them the eggs prove 
abortive. In the small cells the sex property of female eggs is lost 
and the egg becomes a common bee, but in a royal cell a queen or 
fertile mother, and in drone cells a spurious mother drone. The 
male eggs in common cells become bees devoid of sex, and in 
drone cells a male or drone. Hummel attacked this most vio- 
lently on the principle that it is at variance with every analogy of 
nature to invest an insect with the power of altering the sex char- 
acter of an egg after laying, and impart to it a power which did not 
belong to it in its original nature. From Hummel’s argument was 
founded one of the chief objections to the hypothesis advanced by 
Huber, that a common bee is possessed of the power of generating 
a queen from a common egg. 
6. Strube held that the queen with a double-branched ovarium 
lays male and female eggs. The male eggs are placed in small cells 
and become male workers. The female eggs become queens 
