14 



BEES AND FRUIT. 



;good of all his works. A large number of ex- 

 amples have been given of the value of bees as 

 agents in the production of fruit and seed, but I 

 will give one or two more. 



Mr. H. A. March, of Puget Sound, while h> re 

 last summer, informed me that he produced 

 Jarge quantities of California seed, and found 

 ibees very valuable, as the seed was much more 

 abundant when bees were provided to work on 

 the flowers. 



The stone fruits seem almost incapable of 

 self-fertilization, as is often proved by trying to 

 .grow peaches under glass, success seeming to 

 ■come only when bees are provided when the 

 trees are in bloom. 



A curious problem has presented itself to the 

 horticulturists of this country for a number of 

 jears past, in the refusal of some varieties of 

 the chicka plum to produce fruit in the North- 

 ern States unless set near some other variety or 

 species of plum, thai insects might carry the 

 pollen from one to the other. Such a tree I can 

 see from my window as I write, that is a bank 

 of bloom every spring, but has never, to my 

 knowledge, produced a crop of fruit. 



Now, suppose it were true that all trees or 

 plants that produce fruit or seed of value for 

 the use of man would become fertile without 

 ■the aid of bees or other insects, would it prove 

 them of no value? Not at all. Enough has 

 been written to show that the Creator has de- 

 sired cross-fertilization among plants, and has 

 wisely provided for it in a multitude of ways; 

 and the chances of such fertilization appear to 

 be as great among plants as among our bees, 

 for which such special arrangement has been 

 made. We might assume it to be valuable or 

 necessary, even if we could see no good reason 

 for it. We all know that birds or domestic 

 animals will prove fruitful for one or perhaps 

 several generations in spite of the intermar- 

 riage of near relations; but it is, I believe, the 

 universal experience that such unions are most 

 unwise, and, as a rule, prove injurious. 



Some twenty-five or thirty years ago Charles 

 Darwin, in studying this subject, and noting 

 the provisions of 'nature for the cross-fertiliza- 

 tion of flowers, became so much interested in it 

 that he began a large number of experiments to 

 test the value of insects in cross-fertilization, 

 and the effects of cross and self fertilization 

 upon plants. His experiments were conducted 

 with great care and continued through several 

 years; and his book on the effects of " Cross 

 and Self Fertilization," describing these experi- 

 ments, containing several hundred pages, is very 

 interesting reading to say the least. 



Of some 125 plants experimented with, more 

 than half were, when insects were excluded, 

 either quite sterile or produced less than half 

 as much seed as when insects were allowed to 

 visit them. Among his catalogue of these 

 plants I notice the white and red clover. His 

 experiments with these are very similar to 



those of Prof. Cook, late of Michigan Agricul- 

 tural College. He says, page 381, of red clover, 

 " One hundred flower- heads on a plant protect- 

 ed by a net did not produce a single seed, while 

 100 heads on plants growing outside, which 

 were visited by bees, yielded 68 grains of weight 

 of seeds; and as 80 seeds weighed two grains, 

 the hundred heads must have yielded 2720 

 seeds. His experience with white clover was 

 nearly the same. 



Another most interesting result of his exper- 

 iments was that plants grown from seed from 

 self-fertilized flowers were, as a rule, when 

 grown side by side with seed from cross-fertil- 

 ized flowers, much less vigorous, although in 

 other respects the conditions were as nearly 

 alike as it was possible to make them. On page 

 371 he says, " The simple fact of the necessity 

 in many cases of extraneous aid for the trans- 

 port of the pollen, and the many contrivances 

 for this purpose, render it highly probable that 

 some great benefit is thus gained; and this con- 

 clusion has now been firmly established by the 

 superior growth, vigor, and fertility of plants of 

 crossed parentage over those of self-fertilized 

 parentage." 



Middlebury, Vt., Feb. 8. 



STRONG EVIDENCE FROM CANADA, ON BEES AS 

 FERTILIZERS. 



By Allen Pringle. 

 It would seem that there are two sides (and 

 sometimes more) to every question outside of 

 mathematics. Until I read the pros and cons 

 on the above subject in the last issue of Glean- 

 ings I had supposed that this matter was set- 

 tled, and fairly within the category of what is 

 called " exact science." While my own opinion 

 on the subject remains unchanged, I realize the 

 fact that others have contrary opinions; and, 

 hence, line upon line, fact upon fact, and argu- 

 ment upon argument, may be necessary to es- 

 tablish what is already established. The sub- 

 ject is one of practical importance to bee-keep- 

 ers, and this is sufficient justification for the 

 space given and the invitation to discuss. As 

 is often the case in such controversies, both sides 

 are right and both wrong— that is, partially so. 

 It is more than probable that the bee-keepers 

 have been claiming too much for the bees in 

 the fertilization of fruit-bloom; and now "the 

 party of the other part " is going too far the 

 other way, and denying them any creditor func- 

 tion in the matter at all. When the bees were 

 attacked by the fruit-men as the enemies of 

 ripe fruit, and all sorts of charges made against 

 them, the bee-keepers felt called upon to defend 

 their pets, and in so doing discovered that there 

 could be no fruit raised without bees, and told 

 the fruit-men so, and the whole world also. 

 This was a mistake. Fruit may be raised with- 

 out the aid of the honey-bee. There are other 

 means of fertilization and cross-fertilization— 

 other winged insects— the wings of the wind, 



