INTRODUCTION. 



have been able to answer them, before they so unequi- 

 vocally expressed their belief in its existence, its powers 

 and administration ? Huber declares that he has pro- 

 cured some globules of this royal jelly, and that he ad- 

 ministered it a la f aeon des abeilles ; the aforesaid editors 

 have believed him, and on his authority alone are the 

 existence and powers of the jelly admitted into the 

 natural history of the bee. 



In the prosecution of the interesting inquiry relative 

 to the fecundation of the queen bee, we may perhaps 

 be accused of having committed some slight offence 

 against the rules of decency, and we acknowledge that 

 the portion of the work which treats of that par- 

 ticular subject, was objected to by one of the most 

 eminent publishers of the present day, as not being 

 exactly suitable for the female eye. With every dis- 

 position, however, to accede to the opinion of that 

 highly experienced individual, we cannot refrain from 

 asking, why the same latitude should not be granted to 

 us, which has been awarded to others ? In every con- 

 tested point relative to the fecundation of an animal, 

 and in no one is that point involved in deeper mystery 

 than in the queen bee, we do not see how it is possible 

 to steer wholly clear of those expressions, illustrative of 

 the subject, which under any other circumstances would 

 be considered as offensive to decency. How, may we 

 ask, was it possible for us to examine or refute the 

 theory of Huber, or of any other naturalist relative to 

 the disputed point of the fecundation of the queen 

 bee, were we, from a fastidious notion of delicacy, to 

 be debarred the use of that language by which our 

 a 5 



