ee. Se Me a ee ee Me ie ny a Ls 
ae en nee = , by : ie i ) cae Sah ee pag Fist . 
‘S - The _success of teasing ihe Bees upon all “the ilowerlike scented substances had 
fairly easy, but similar experiments with the foul-smelling scatole failed. It 
med that the smell of scatole had nothing repulsive for the bees, for they entered 
without hesitation the scatole boxes, in which they were fed. If the task was 
“Ss et them to find out an empty box, scented with scatole, among other, unscented, 
er pty boxes, ‘they showed great uncertainty and - did, as a rule, not frequent the 
‘scatole box lany more than the inodorous ones. _ Nevertheless, the bees perceive the 
‘smell of scatole, for, if bees trained upon orange blossom perfume have to chose 
between two boxes, of which & one contains only orange blossom oil and the other; 
in addition to a a auarity of OTANI: blossom oil, some. ‘Sscatole, they prefer 
the former. | : 
q 4 There were positive Pastis with patchouly oil, it is true, but also with this aromatic 
the bees showed uncertainty. The bees perceive the ‘smell of scatole and patchouly oil, 
‘but they do not learn at_all, or only incompletely, that the presence of these bodies 
_may mean food. This was the case only with such odours as are unknown to the bees 
from nature and have not the slightest resemblance. with those which since uncounted 
generations are of importance for the bees collecting honey. : 
In. this" connection, At ds: remarkable that training them upon fel succeeded 3 
ai: ie gers iia He : ae | 
s According to von Frisch, it pecuire that the ‘olbactive. sense of the hee is not so 
widely different from that of man, as Hoes have been eapee let. in consequence of their 
unlike organization. 
e 
¢ 
A Tiber Duft wnd Bebich (About Odour nie Smell) is the title of an article ey H. | Helier, 
which contains reflections worth reading on the two terms in question . and many other 
hie views. . lt does not eae itself, however, to. a short review. 
A. ‘Koelsch?) has published an article oe Biology of the Odd: of Plants. We 
need not go into it any further, for it deals only with J. Giglioli’s work on the subject. © 
The uninitiated reader might conclude from the article that the observations mentioned 
were quite new,~but this is not the case, as Giglioli’ S relative studies Bae been dis- 
ct — on page 162 of our April Report 1912. — (Ag 
_ We wish to add to our - discussion of A. ‘Dares treatise on the theory of smelling *) 
that the supposition of ionized molecules would afford perhaps an explanation of the 
p ied of aromatic particles, observed by the author, to Ereensy water vapour whee 
dey -are in a Beprons state. - 
. an pes iocuadise the antiseptic power of some essential oils, L. Cavel*) studied 
eir action on ordinary beef-tea, which he had previously infected with water taken 
from the collecting tank of a sewerage system. Other authors (Cavel only quotes 
older French scientists, it is true) had always studied the action of only one kind 
f bacteriz, whereas Cavel investigated so to speak the general antiseptic action, 
4" similar water contains a great variety of microbes, mostly saprophytes, but also 
Sor ne pathogenetic germs. 
' 
' 
a 4) Prometheus 1918, Nos. 47/48; Deutsche Parf-Ztg. 5 (1919), 2. ve 2) Deutsche Parf-Ztg. 4 (1918), 174. — 
) Report April/October 1918, 128. — *) Compt. rend. 166 (1918), 827. « 
Se ep | 
cs, 
