HISTORY AND PHYSIOLOGY. 55 



was reared at all ; but this not being the case, is 

 very strong evidence that the theory is at fault, in 

 fact, that it is not true in any sense. 



langstroth's theory. 



Langstroth says: "My friend, Mr. Samuel Wag- 

 oner, has advanced a highly ingenious theory, which 

 accounts for all the facts, without admitting that the 

 queen has any special knowledge or will on the sub- 

 ject. He supposes that when she deposits her eggs 

 in the worker cells, her body is slightly compressed 

 by their size, thus causing the eggs, as they pass the 

 spermatheca, to receive its vivifying influence. On 

 the contrary, when she is laying in drone cells, as 

 this compression cannot take place, the mouth of the 

 spermatheca is kept closed, and the eggs are neces- 

 sarily unfecundated, producing only drones, &c." 



This is a very plausible theory, indeed, and in the 

 absence of positive evidence pro or con, it might as 

 well be received (for Buncomb). Yet I must say, I 

 have no faith in it. Facts, and further experience and 

 observation, will, I apprehend, demonstrate its fallacy. 



The seminal sac, as shown by the drawing of the 

 ovaries of the queen, highly magnified, in Lang- 

 stroth's work, is near the terminus or outer end of 

 the oviduct, consequently very near the hinder part 

 of the queen ; now compare the size of this part of 

 the body of the queen with the size of the worker 

 cells, and we find that the particular part where this 

 sac is located could be thrust, to the bottom of the cell 

 without coming in contact with its sides. No pressure 



