220 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, July 7, 1857. 
Helianthemums, double and single, various. 
Cheiranthus alpinus, 1 foot, lemon. 
„ Marshallii, 1 foot, orange. 
Geranium Endresii, 1 foot, bright pink, good. 
„ Lancastriense, 6 inches, pale pink. 
„ sanguineum, 0 inches, red. 
„ palustre, 1 foot G inches, purple. 
,, pratense. 
„ Ibericum, 1 foot G inches, bright blue. 
„ striatum, 1 foot, white-striped. 
Veronicas, various. 
Coronilla Iberica, G inches, yellow. 
Saponaria ocymoides, 3 inches, pink. 
Aster alpinus, 1 foot, purple. 
Thymus serpyllum. 
Lamium maculatum. 
Dictamnus fraxinella, 1 foot 6 inches, red. 
„ albus, 1 foot 6 inches, white. 
Valerians, red and white. 
Lysimachia verticillata, 3 feet, yellow. 
Celsia Cretica, 4 feet, yellow. 
Centaurea dealbata, 2 feet, reddish purple. 
Anchusa Italica, 4 feet, blue and white. 
„ incarnata. 
Anthemis tinctoria, 2 feet, yellow. 
Aubrietia purpurea, G inches, blue. 
Phlox suaveolens, 1 foot 6 inches, white. 
„ setaeea, bright pink. 
„ subulata, bright pink. 
Symphitum Caucasicum, 1 foot, blue. 
„ Bohemicum, red. 
„ common white. 
Scutellaria bicolor, G inches, blue and white. 
„ grandiflora, G inches, blue. 
Spiraea filipendula. 
,, aruncus. 
Pyrethrum roseum, 3 feet, rose. 
„ „ 2 feet, double white. 
Melittis grandiflora. 
Fumarias, red and yellow. 
Arnopogon Dalechampii, 1 foot, lemon. 
Astragalus onobrycliis. 
Ononis rotundifolia. 
Aquilegia Whitmannii, 1 foot 6 inches, purple. 
„ fragrans, pale lemon. 
Barbieria flore-pleno. 
Catananche cserulea. 
„ bicolor. 
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum montanum, white. 
Cuphea strigillosa, orange and red. 
Campanulas, numerous. 
Crucianella stylosa, G inches, pink. 
Dracocephalum Ruysehianum, 6 inches, purple. 
Erysimum diffusum, G inches, lemon. 
Stenactis speciosa, 1 foot 0 inches, blue. 
Gnaphalium dioicum, 6 inches, pink. 
Genista sagittalis, G inches, yellow. 
Hieracium aurantiacum, 1 foot, orange. 
Lupinus polyphyllus, blue and white. 
Lotus corniculatus flore-pleno, 3 inches, yellow. 
Lathyrus grandiflorus. 
Lithospermum purpureo casruleum, 1 foot, purple. 
Potentillas, various. 
Phyteuma orbicularis, G inches, purple. 
Prunella Pennsylvanica, 1 foot, blue. 
Polemonium casruleum, 1 foot, blue. 
» reptans, 6 inches, blue. 
Papaver orientale, 3 feet, scarlet. 
Polygonum viviparum, 6 inches, white. 
Ranunculus aconitifolius, 1 foot, white. 
„ acris-plenus, 2 feet, yellow. 
Saxifraga ceratophylla, 3 inches, white. 
Stacbys coccinea, l toot, red. 
Solidago virgaurea, 1 foot, yellow. 
Verbascum phoeniceum, 2 feet, purple. 
The preceding is. a list of some of the more prominent 
flowers present in bloom with me. X hope your corre- 
spondent, “ \\ . U.,’ will be encouraged to go on with his 
list of hardy perennials, accompanying it with remarks on 
the habit or treatment of such plants as he may think 
worthy of more particular notice. We have long felt the want 
of information on this head. As cultivators we have groped 
our way unaided except by occasional short paragraphs 
in The Cottage Gardener. Doubtless many gardens 
throughout the country, distantly situated from each other, 
contain plants which, if brought into notice, would be ge¬ 
nerally inquired for and cultivated, much to the pleasure of 
amateurs and the advantage of the trade. Foreign gardens 
and countries would also yield their treasures more largely, 
and the lower classes partake of the benefit. It is not so 
much the want of taste or the want of information that keeps 
this interesting class of plants in the background. The 
Cottage Gardener would do good service by furnishing 
this desideratum.—S. P., Rushmere. 
[It is refreshing to welcome this signature again,— 
Ed. C. G.] 
New Bee-Hive. —At the Oxford Horticultural Show on 
the 23rd of June the Rev. G. W. St. John exhibited some 
bee-hives, adapted for cottagers, on the depriving system, 
without destroying the bees. They were designated “ Fenn’s 
Woodstock Alliance Hives,” and attracted great attention. 
The Mayor of , Oxford (J. Towle, Esq.) also exhibited a 
beautiful glass of newly-made honey. We hope to have full 
particulars of Mr. Fenn’s hives. 
ON DRONE BEES AND DRONE EGGS. 
In your publication of the 23rd instant your correspondent, 
Mr. Wigbton, has opened a discussion of some interest to 
the naturalist. In common with him I never saw, and am 
inclined to doubt the reality, though alluded to by Huber, of 
a drone bee bred in a worker cell. I have, however, often 
observed that, as in the case of common bees, some indi¬ 
vidual drones are considerably less than others, and it is 
not improbable that the difference is sometimes owing to 
their having been reared in old contracted cells ; for this 
circumstance, as Huber observes, applies, as to its effect, 
both to drones and workers. Moreover, I have known a 
dark-coloured common bee sometimes mistaken for a small 
drone. But a farther and more important question arises— 
What is a drone egg? Had not modern experience taught 
us differently, we should still be believing with Huber that 
a queen bee “ can at a certain time of the year produce only 
the eggs of males, and at another those of workers.” Farther, 
“ that the eggs are not mixed in the ovaries of the queen, 
but arranged so that at a particular season she can only lay 
a certain kind, the eggs of workers occupying the first place 
in the oviducts.” All this is notoriously erroneous, Dr. 
Dunbar, Dr. Bevan, and Mr. Wigbton himself having, with 
others, observed that the order of laying is frequently dis¬ 
turbed, the queen depositing an egg one minute in a worker, 
and the next in a drone cell. The eggs are not ,, therefore, 
separated in the oviduct, nor, as I believe, anywhere else. 
Still less is there the slightest probability that the queen is 
directed by any instinct to understand that one egg differs 
from another, and that this influences a selection at the 
time of laying. I no more believe she is aware of the sex 
or other peculiarity of the egg than a bird in laying, or a 
female of her unborn offspring. And next, as bearing on the 
subject, let me say a word as to the effect of forcibly retarding 
the impregnation of a queen, inducing solely the production 
of drones, the cause of which Huber says “ has not yet been 
discovered.” He declares it to be “ an abyss in which he is 
lost.” How if Huber himself should have unconsciously 
explained what 1 am inclined to believe is the real cause of 
the anomaly', viz., simply bodily malformation in the queen, 
resulting from the unnatural treatment to which she has 
been subjected ? Huber proceeds to state that “ the bodies of 
queens are shortened where fecundation has been retarded, 
whilst the two first rings next the thorax are uncommonly 
enlarged.” Here, then, to my mind, is an explanation of the 
mystery. The poor queen is disabled from depositing her 
eggs in any cells but large ones, and even in these we have 
the further authority of Huber for the fact that she is pre¬ 
vented from reaching “ the bottom on account of the swoln 
rings, consequently the egg remains attached to the part 
reached by it.” The worker cells are, of course, rendered 
