154 
ANNALS OF THE 
sion of sex. The theory to which they lead is either that the ova, "when deposited, 
are sexless, and that it is the subsequent treatment that determines the sex, or that 
each ovum is bisexual, and that the subsequent treatment merely determines which 
sex is to predominate. This latter is the more probable view, as it is countenanced 
by the phenomena of hermaphroditism. The facts arc such as to compel us to re- 
sort to some such theory. If you scattered a handful of ova at random over the 
empty cells of a comb, and if you found that all that fell into large cells became 
drones, and all that fell into small became neuters, you would naturally conclude 
that the cells had something to do with the differentiation of sex. Now, it is 
quite ascertained that the queen deposits her ova in this apparently random method. 
If removed from drone cells, when she is busy laying, to neuter cells, she will con- 
tinue her laying, and the cells will produce their appropriate sexes. 
The only other hypothesis by which the failures are attempted to be explained, 
is that of Sicbold, who holds that all the ova are originally male, but that, at the 
moment of deposition, the queen can, at will, convert the male ovum into a female 
one. This is supposed to be done by the action of voluntary muscles, which inject 
spermatozoa into the ovum through the micropyle The queen is provided with a 
spermatheca, and she can, at will, fertilize or not the ova as they pass. When de- 
positing an ovum in a large cell, she does not fertilize, and the ovum produces a 
drone. When depositing in small cells, she fertilizes, and the result is female or 
neuter bees. This theory implies the conversion of sex, for according to it, all 
ova are originally male, and the conversion is effected by the presence of sperma- 
tozoa. Siebold thinks that his microscopic observations have established this 
theory. He says that he clearly detected spermatozoa in the neuter ova, while 
none could be discovered in those of the drone. We have repeated his experi- 
ments in many hundred cases, but could find no corroboration. We have found 
what appeared to be spermatozoa ; but, on more careful examination, we discov- 
ered that they were merely folds in the membrane of the ova, and these folds are 
very like the threadlike spermatozoa of insects. In the case of all the ova we 
have examined, they were taken immediately after being deposited by the queen. 
This is essential, for if the interval was great, there would be little hope of finding 
them, even though visible at an earlier stage. We do not by any means think that 
the problem is solved by the few imperfect observations of Siebold. Evidence 
has still to be accumulated, and a most interesting field is still open for the investi- 
gations of the naturalist. 
