HISTORY AND PHYSIOLOGY. 51 



some serious difficulties in the way, that to me, at 

 least, seem hard to reconcile. 



Langstroth has elucidated this mystery, and no 

 doubt made it very plain and satisfactory to himself, 

 at least ; but a very few stubborn facts sometimes de- 

 stroy the most beautifully drawn theories. 



Dzierzon asserts that all impregnated eggs produce 

 females, either workers or queens ; and all unim- 

 pregnated ones, males or drones. He also states, 

 that in several of his hives he found drone-laying 

 queens, whose wings were so imperfect that they 

 were unable to fly, and which on examination, prov- 

 ed to be unfecundated. {Query. How did he ascer- 

 tain that fact ?) Hence he concludes that the eggs laid 

 by the queen bee and fertile worker had from the 

 previous impregnation of the egg from which they 

 sprung, sufficient vitality to produce the drone, which 

 is a less highly organized insect than the queen or 

 worker. 



Thi3 argument is far fetched, and not well found- 

 ed.. Impregnation is, I think, essential to produce 

 either male or female. He continues: "It had long- 

 been known that the queen deposits drone eggs in 

 the large or drone cells, and worker eggs in the small 

 or worker cells, and that she makes no mistakes." 

 And he infers, therefore, that there was some way in 

 which she was able to decide the sex of the egg be- 

 fore it was laid, and that she must have such a con- 

 trol over the mouth of the seminal sac as to be able 

 to extrude her eggs, allowing them at will to receive 

 or not a portion of its fertilizing contents. In this 



