THE IONEY-BEE. ‘37 
ever raised, whose body was even smaller than that of a 
worker, it occurred to me at once that if she ever laid, it 
would be a test of this theory. Her body being small, it 
could not be compressed like that of others, and a large 
portion of her progeny, would prove to be drones in work- 
er-cells. The result was just what I expected ; one half 
were drones.” 
Capt. Hetherington vouches for similar experience, and 
approves of this theory. Prof. Cook, who claims that 
the fertilizing fluid is forced out at will, by voluntary 
muscular contraction, presents the opposing statement, 
that very small queens make no mistakes, and that with 
no drone-cells, the queen will sometimes lay drone-eggs in 
worker-cells which will hatch drones, and also that she 
will, if compelled, reluctantly place worker-eggs in drone- 
cells. 
I have read and re-read this statement to see if I could 
not find some qualification, that would harmonize it with 
my own observations, but in this, our experience differs 
widely. We, (Mr. Quinby and myself,) gave this point a 
great deal of earnest thought and study. In hundreds of 
tests and experiments we were never able to detect a sin- 
gle variation in the rule, that a worker or queen would 
never be hatched from an egg, deposited in a drone-cell 
of ordinary size and depth. This is corroborated by the 
fact that when furnishing a strong swarm with none but 
drone-combs, where their natural instinct would lead them 
to rear workers, if possible, I have never found workers 
or queens raised under these circumstances. This con- 
clusion is sustained by some of the best writers of the past 
and present. 
Prof. Cook ‘argues against Mr. Wagner’s theory from 
the fact that fertilized eggs are deposited in queen-cells, 
which are too large to afford the necesssary compression, 
and also in unfinished worker-cells whose walls are not 
sufficiently extended to produce it. 
