36 
Beekeeping 
the words think,” know,” “suppose” and the like applied 
to bees. As a figure of speech such a form of expression may 
perhaps be admissible but if used in its absolute sense 12 
it is not warranted. It would result in a marked diminution 
the literature on bees, and a great improvement therein, 
if such material could be wiped out of existence. 
Danger from poor work. 
Ihere is but one source of erroneous theory more danger¬ 
ous than those mentioned and that is the observer who makes 
false observations and unwarranted deductions. Here too 
b “ has n ot escaped. Because of the wide interest in 
bees there has been a demand for scientific information 
oncermng them and this has induced several untrained or 
poorly trained men to undertake observations on the struc- 
ture ° r behavior of bees, for which they were not equipped. 
' , ™ ork ’ bei ”S frequently presented in a more popular 
and attractive form than genuine scientific work, has had 
much influence among beekeepers so that, in attempting to 
present the results of thorough work, it is first often neces- 
writer Sh ° W lnaccuracies of work done by unqualified 
Advantage of experience in behavior investigations. 
H must not be supposed that our present knowledge of 
the behavior of the bee is complete. It is, in fact, woefully 
meager. It is probably true, however, that a well-informed 
beekeeper has a wider and more accurate knowledge con¬ 
cerning bees than have many students of animal behavior 
concerning the species with which they work. The intimate 
acquaintance of the beekeeper with these insects results in a 
knowledge of their activities which, while faulty at times 
due to a lack of training in observation, is as a whole quite 
accurate. While this information is often fragmentary and 
is usually acquired without any special realization of the 
general principles of behavior, at the same time the data 
acquired through years of contact with the bees are perhaps 
