394 General Notes. [ une, 
case with the author of the article, but of hundreds, has placed . 
Dzierzon’s theory on a certain basis. The writer says, referring 
to his single hive, “ from this it is evident that the drone eggs, 
like those of the females, receive the contact of the semen 
deposited by the male in the female organs.’ 
It is well known that virgin queens will lay eggs that will pro- 
duce exclusively male bees. I have seen several such cases. I 
have known queens reared late in autumn to pass the winter as 
virgins and ever after to produce only male bees. Deformity of 
the queen, or clipping her wing while yet a virgin, so that she 
may be unable to take the “ marriage flight,” precludes mating, 
and as Pia makes a “drone laying queen.” Old queens with 
shriveled Fee amare are often drone layers. 
ow did the writer know his queen in ‘question was not a 
hybrid ? “He could not know. Many hybrid queens are to all 
appearance perfectly pure. Again, how did the writer know that 
the were hybrids or blacks? Frequently the drones of 
our queens imported right from Italy, like the queens, are almost 
-as dark as thé drones of the German race, yet the three banded 
workers show the queen to be pure. One case alone, however 
striking, should not be regarded as fatal to so well established a 
theory. The case given, so far as given, is no evidence against 
parthenogenesis of the drone. bees.—d. F. 
Perez’ paper in the Annales des Sciences Nashi for April, 
1878 (only just received), is followed by one published in June, 
1878, by A.-Sanson, who thinks that Perez goes too far in quali- 
fying the insufficiency of the observations of Dzierzon, and who 
has. not given the most exact interpretation to his own (Perez) 
observations. The view that the honey bee is parthenogenetic is 
the co-existence in this hive of fertile queens and workers.— 
Editors Naturalist. 
THE ANATOMY OF THE ANTHROPOID ApEs.—This itga has 
received some oe contributions from the recent investiga- : 
