30 THE BEE-KEEPER’S MANUAL. 
Langstroth says that he has had a clear instance 
of this change for the better; but Von Berlepsch 
sets theory against observation, and believes that 
the drone eggs, which Mr. Langstroth had previously 
noticed, must have been laid by a fertile worker,* 
and not by the young queen. But it is hard to be- 
lieve that Mr. Langstroth could be capable of such 
a mistake, and if queens are not all alike in this 
respect after failing to become impregnated, it seems 
uureasonable to conclude that they must be all alike 
at an earlier epoch. This, however, is another ques- 
tion as to which further observation is to be desired. 
A few instances are recorded in which the act of 
copulation has been witnessed, and in two of these the 
drone fell instantly dead, in a third it survived for a 
few minutes, and in a fourth it flew away apparently 
unharmed. One of these cases is reported from Ger- 
many ; two others are cited in the American Bee Jour- 
nl for March, 1861, and the fourth by its British 
namesake for June, 1878. This last, if it could be 
depended upon as even a probable case of accom- 
plished fecundation, would modify the accepted views 
very materially; but most unfortunately the observer 
did not pursue the matter, and does not therefore tell 
us whether the queen exhibited the “token,” or even 
whether she proved fertilised or not—and without this 
information we must not depart from the established 
belief that the act is necessarily fatal to the male bee. 
The cause of this singular catastrophe is to be found 
in the structure of the male organ, which is a sort of 
* This term is explained a little further on. 
