BEES AND FRUIT. 



the bloom with water, and sometimes ice, and 

 is as destructive to the embryo fruit as a heavy 

 frost. This damp cold weather would also pre- 

 vent pollen from being carried about by the 

 wind. Again, Prof. C. covered some fruit-blooms 

 with cheese-cloth, and the result was they were 

 not fertilized as well as those left uncovered. ■ 

 Any one would have naturally expected this, 

 as this cheese-cloth would certainly keep off 

 the pollen floated about by the wind. Did he 

 or any one else see the bees visit those uncover- 

 ed blossoms? If not, why make such a positive 

 statement that the bees were the sole cause of 

 their fertilization? 



But it is not my intention to criticise the ar- 

 ticles in Gleanings, but to give some facts 

 bearing upon the subject. Within ten miles of 

 me there is a tight little island in Lake Erie 

 where no bees are kept; and it is so far from 

 main land, and other places where bees are 

 "kept, that bees never visit it. This island is 

 almost entirely used for fruit-growing, and a 

 success is made of it. But the editor of Glean- 

 ings says, " That fruit has grown where no bees 

 were known, proves nothing." Let's see. I 

 have a friend on this same island devoted to 

 growing fine fruit; and his fruit, whether of 

 apples, pears, plums, or cherries, or his especial 

 pride, strawberries and raspberries, can not be 

 grown to any greater perfection upon any land 

 of the same quality in the State of Ohio, though 

 there were 100 stands of bees in the " corner of 

 the garden." But this may " prove nothing," 

 except the old adage, 



Convince a man against his will, 

 He's of the same opinion still. 



It may be said that, in the absence of bees, 

 other insects may have fertilized the fruit- 

 bloom. Well, if other insects fertilize the bloom 

 so perfectly, why say that bees are necessary to 

 <3o it? But Prof. Cook shows the improbability 

 of the other insect theory. He says, in the 

 same article quoted before, " Early in the sea- 

 son in our northern latitude most insects are 

 scarce. The severe winters so thin their num- 

 bers that we find barely one; whereas we can 

 find hundreds in late summer," etc., showing 

 •conclusively that the fine fruit of this place was 

 not owing to insect fertilization. 



And now for the "bumble- bee." Every one 

 will admit that it is a hum-bug; and I think 

 this red-clover-seed theory connected with it 

 is the biggest kind of a humbug. There are 

 but few bumble-bees on this island, some sea- 

 sons scarcely any. For every single bumble- 

 bee here, I believe there are ten thousand, and, 

 I might safely say, ten million clover-heads. In 

 a favorable season, red clover makes a fine 

 yield of seed here. It would simply be impos- 

 sible for the bumble-bees to visit all the heads 

 •containing seed. 



Pelee Island, Ont. 



{Perhaps some unwarranted conclusions have 



been drawn by both sides; if so, let's have the 

 fallacies shown up. While you are peculiarly 

 well situated for getting facts, some of your 

 conclusions will not stand the closest scrutiny. 

 For instance, you say you have a friend, a 

 fruit-grower, on an island where no bees exist, 

 whose fruit "can not be grown to any greater 

 perfection upon any land of the same quality," 

 where there are 100 stands of bees. We ask, 

 how do you know this ? and what do you mean 

 by perfection? The fruit may be "perfection " 

 in your estimation, but how do you know that 

 it would not be better if bees were present at 

 blossom time? We insist, again, that it does 

 not prove much to assert that a friend of yours 

 grows the "perfection of fruit" on an island 

 remote from bees. If he had grown fruit for 

 ten years without bees and then ten years with 

 the bees, there would then be an opportunity 

 for a fairer comparison. Again, in your last 

 paragraph you say nothing about the possibili- 

 ties of the Italians fertilizing the red clover. 

 The probabilities are, that the ordinary hive- 

 bees do ten times more pollen-scattering on 

 these big clovers, because of their numbers, 

 than the bumble-bees. Here, again, if all bees 

 were removed, both bumble-bees and hive-bees, 

 for a lew seasons, from access to red clover, 

 and then again for a few seasons allowed to 

 visit the blossoms, the test would be fairer; and 

 then, how do you know that the bumble-bees 

 do not do their share? As we see it, friend 

 Smith, you have unconsciously fallen into the 

 same error in drawing conclusions that you find 

 in the writings of those who affirm that bees do 

 assist in scattering pollen. — Ed.] 



THE ELEMENTS OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE 

 KECENT DISCUSSION. 



By John C. Oilliland. 

 There are some well-known facts to be taken 

 into consideration in the discussion of animal 

 life aiding in the fertilization of blossoms and 

 plants. We know, both by revelation and 

 geology, that plants were created before ani- 

 mal life, and had power within themselves to 

 perfect seed, and in their natural forms do so 

 yet. While all form 8 of plants and animal life 

 are more or less dependent on each other, the 

 lower forms are more independent than the 

 higher. Commencing with the lowest, each 

 new creation was for and looking to a higher 

 order, and all orders of animal life are depen- 

 dent on plants for continued existence. All 

 orders, whether of plants or animal life, were 

 good, and for a good purpose at first; and the 

 evil and conflict we see is only perverted good. 

 There is nothing evil of itself, as all evil is only 

 perverted good. By the power of his intelli- 

 gence and selection, man has changed the form 

 and use of many kinds of both plants and ani- 

 mals; and who shall say that the lower forms 

 of animal life have not done the same? But the 

 real question is, How much increase is there in 



