The Martlani) Fabm Bureau Federation 11 



strength earlier in the season. The proportion of old bees also appeared 

 to be greater than in colonies with good queens. Both colonies died out 

 during the winter of 1933-34. 



The reason why some queens while still young and apparently vigorous 

 lay both worker and drone eggs in worker cells has never been definitely 

 determined. It seems natural to suspect insuflacient insemination and 

 this explanation has been advanced as a possible cause. The explanation 

 is purely theoretical, however, as proof to support it has never been ob- 

 tained. The fact that mated queens are more likely to become partial 

 drone-layers after they have been shipped in mailing cages would seem 

 to be adverse to this theory. Also W. J. Nolan in unpublished work found, 

 by microscopical examination, that an artificially inseminated queen that 

 layed only worker eggs in worker cells appeared to have received a com- 

 paratively small amount of semen. Likewise the cause of the death of 

 the drone brood of partial-drone-laying queens as well as of laying workers 

 and drone-laying queens has never been determined. In case of laying 

 workers and drone-laying queens, improper nutrition, perhaps owing to 

 the absence of young nurse bees, has been suggested as a possible cause. 

 In case of partial-drone-laying queens, however, the drone brood dies even 

 when young bees are present. More work on these questions seems to be 

 desirable. 



LITERATUKE CITED 

 'Langstroth, L. L., and Dadant, C. P. 1927. Thel Honeybee, p. 51. 



' . 1927. The Honeybee. D. 52. 



"Root, E. K. 1935. ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture, p. 612. 

 'Watson, li. R. 1927. Controlled Mating of Queenbees. 



THE BEE LOUSE 



By Ernj:st N. Cory 

 State Entomologist 



For many years, particularly in the southern European section, the bee 

 louse has been recognized as a pest of the hive bee, but relatively little 

 accurate knowledge of its habits has been developed in the native habitat 

 of this insect. It has been introduced into this country presumably with 

 imported queen bees on a number of occasions, and was found in what 

 seems to be in serious proportions in Maryland in 1920, and apparently 

 the first record occurred in Minnesota in 1911. Mr. Nusbaum, in whose 

 apiary it was found in 1920, reported that he had observed the insect at 

 least five years previous to that date without knowing at that time its 

 identity. It was found in Cumberland County, near Harrisburg, Pennsyl- 

 vania in 1918 and again in 1923. In 1925 Mr. Argo found the insect either 

 in the adult, or in the form of larval tunnels in honey from Allegany 

 County, two points in Washington County, Prince George's County, Bal- 

 timore County, and many places in Carroll County. In the latter part of 

 that year he found it in honey produced near Rochester, New York. During 



