NATURAI. history op toe honey-bee. 
39 
and at once conjectured that this was a case of an unim¬ 
pregnated drone-laying queen, sufficient time not having 
elapsed for her impregnation to be unnaturally retarded. 
All necessary precautions were taken to determine this 
point. The queen was removed from the hive, and 
although her wings appeared to be perfect, she could not 
fly. It seemed probable, therefore, that she had never 
been able to leave the hive for impregnation. 
To settle the question beyond the possibility of doubt, 
I submitted this queen to Professor Leidy for microscopic 
examination. The following is an extract from his re¬ 
port. “ The ovaries were filled with eggs, the poison-sac 
full of fluid ; and the spermatheca distended with a per¬ 
fectly colorless, transparent, viscid liquid, without a trace 
of spermatozoa .” 
This examination demonstrates Dzierzon’s theory that 
queens do not need impregnation to lay the eggs of males. 
Considerable doubt seemed to rest on the accuracy of 
Dzierzon’s statements on this subject, chiefly because of 
his having hazarded the unfortunate conjecture that the 
place of the poison bag in the worker is occupied in the 
queen by the spermatheca. Now this is so completely 
contrary to fact (PI. XVIII., A, D,) that it was a natural 
inference that this acute and thoroughly honest observer 
made no microscopic dissections of the insects which he 
examined. I consider myself peculiarly fortunate, in 
having obtained the aid of a naturalist so celebrated for 
microscopic dissections as Dr. Leidy. 
On examining tills same colony a few days later, I found 
satisfactory evidence that these drone-eggs were laid by 
the queen which had been removed. No fresh eggs had 
been deposited in the cells, and the bees on missing her 
had begun to build royal cells, to rear, if possible, another 
queen; this they would not have done, if a fertile worker 
