148 
Psyche 
[October 
conclusion that only Bremus ruderatus, and perhaps some other 
“hypogeic’’ species, have ‘‘trumpeters,” but only while the 
colonies are strong. 
Hoffer’s (1882-83) confirmation again brought Goedart’s 
(1685) “trumpeter” story into good repute among biologists 
for a period of more than twenty years. With apparently the 
single exception of Perez (1889), it was accepted — in most cases 
after personal verification — by Firtsch (cf. Hoffer, 1882-83, 
p. 25), Kristof (1883), Harter (1890), Sharp (1899), Marshall 
(1902), and Bengtsson (1903). Perez (p. 117), while not in the 
least doubting the general correctness of Hoffer’s (1882-83) ob- 
servations, rejected the latter’s interpretation by pointing out 
(1) that there is little sense in having a “trumpeter” unless he 
be the first one to rise, and (2) that the sound produced by the 
“trumpeter” is of no use whatever, as far as rousing the colony is 
concerned, since (according to Perez) bumblebees, like honey- 
bees and ants, are completely deaf. Perez (1889) then offers his 
own explanation. After expressing the opinion that the bumble- 
bee “trumpeter” fulfills no social function, and that the ‘‘trump- 
eting” is probabW done for his own benefit, Perez (p. 117) 
suggests that the “trumpeters” in bumblebee colonies, like the 
so-called ventilators among honeybees, are newly-hatched 
individuals which are training their wing muscles for the long 
flights which they will soon make. However, as we have already 
seen, PG^ez’ (1889) theory, although more plausible than that of 
Goedart (1685), seems to have made little or no impression upon 
contemporary biologists. 
Fourteen years after the publication of this theory, a third 
interpretation was offered by the well-known German bee student 
von Buttel-Reepen (1903, 1907). Unlike PG’ez (1889), this 
author suggested that the bumblebee “trumpeter” has the 
same social function as the ventilators in the' honeybee colony,^ 
4Sinc,e writing the above, I have discovered that a similar explanation was offered by Mr. 
J. Angus in a letter to Messrs. A. S. Packard and F. W. Putnam (cf- Packard (1868), 35 years 
before von Buttel-Reepen published his interpretation. Mr. Angus’ letter partly reads as 
follows: “I have found the males [of Bremus (Bombus) vagans] plentiful near our garden fence, 
with a hole such as would be made by a mouse. They seem to be quite numerous. I was at- 
tracted to it by the noise they were making in fanning at the opening. I counted at one time as 
many as seven thus employed, and the sound could be heard several yards off. Several males 
were at rest, but mostly on the wing, when they would make a dash among the fanners, and all 
would scatter and sport around. The workers seem to be of a uniform size, and fully as large 
as the males. I think the object of the fanning was to introduce air into the nest, as is done by 
the Honey-bees.” 
