30Q THE COTTAGE GAEDENEE AND COUNTKY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, August 11, 1857. 
HAEDY PLANTS FLO WEEING IN JULY AT 
SOUTHAMPTON. 
Acanthus spinosus, 2£ feet, purple and white. 
Aconitum Chinense, 4 feet, blue and W'hite. 
Aster amellus, 2 feet, pink. 
„ alpinus, 6 inches, lilac and white. 
Betonica stricta, 2 feet, red. 
„ grandiflora, 1^ feet, red. 
Campanula rotundifolia, 3 feet, blue. 
„ alliarisefolia, 2 feet, white. 
„ pyramidalis, 3 feet to 4 feet, blue and white. 
Catananche bicolor, 3 feet, blue and white. 
Calystegia pubescens, G feet to 8 feet, pink (climber). 
Clematis vincetoxinum, 2 feet, white. 
Convolvulus althceoides, 4 feet, pink (climber). 
Dianthus deltoides, G inches, red and white. 
Eryngium alpinum, 3 feet, blue. 
„ amethystinum, 4 feet, blue. 
Epilobium Dodonsei, 2 feet, pink. 
Funkia lancerefolia, 2 feet, blue. 
„ marginata, 2 feet, blue. 
„ cserulea, 2 feet, blue. 
„ Sieboldiana, 2 feet, white. 
Gentiana cruciata, 9 inches, blue. 
„ septemfida, 1 foot, blue. 
„ asclepiadea, 1 foot, blue. 
Gaura Lindheimeria, 4 feet, white and pink. 
Gnaphalium margaritaceum, 2| feet, white. 
Lobelia fulgens multiflora, 3 feet, crimson. 
„ syphilitica, 2 feet, blue. 
„ splendens, 4 feet, scarlet. 
Lilium aurantiacum, 3 feet, orange. 
„ colchicum, 3 feet, yellow. 
„ tigrinum, 4 feet, orange-spotted. 
„ candidum, 3 feet, white. 
,, Japonicum, 3 feet, white and brown. 
Lythrum virgatum, 2 feet, purple. 
„ villosum, 2 feet, lilac purple. 
Latliyrus latifolius, G feet, pink. 
„ „ flore-albo, 6 feet, white. 
,. tuberosus, 2 feet, pink. 
Monarda didyma, 3 feet, red. 
„ punctata, 2 feet, lilac. 
(Enothera speciosa, 2 feet, white. 
Phyteuma campanuloides, 2 feet, blue.' 
Phloxes in great variety, 2 feet to 4 feet. 
Eudbeckia laciniata, 5 feet, yellow. 
Sedum populifolium, 9 inches, white and pink. 
Sempervivum arachnoideum, 4 inches, red. 
Veronica maritima ceerulea, 2 feet, blue. 
„ „ alba, 2 feet, white. 
Wahlenbergia grandiflora, 1 foot, sky blue. 
Zauschneria Californica, 1-1 feet, scarlet.—W m. Upright. 
BRITISH BOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
The ordinary Meeting of the Society was held July 23rd, 
1857, Eobert Hogg, Esq., V.P., in the chair. 
Mr. William Carmicheal again exhibited his seedling 
Peach, the Stirling Castle. They were this time far too 
ripe and almost devoid of flavour; it was considered very 
questionable if they have ever possessed the constituents 
necessary to a fruit of superior quality. The impression 
formed was, that it did not approach in quality the Royal 
Georye and other esteemed varieties. Mr. Carmicheal 
having reported that it was superior to such varieties at 
Dunmore, it was much desired that ho should have sent 
other varieties from the same garden or neighbourhood, 
that its relative value might be ascertained. On being 
written to, however, he replied that no other kinds were 
ripe with him, and he could not assist in obtaining such a 
comparison. 
This matter is mentioned more fully to draw attention to 
the importance of. sending, as often as possible, with new 
varieties, specimens of the older kinds upon which they are 
supposed by the raisers to be improvements. The Society is 
anxious to certify to the merit of every variety which pos¬ 
sesses it, although its usefulness may only exist in a limited 
locality, and in such cases it is equally desirous of defining 
such locality as exactly as possible. 
Messrs. Ivery and Son, nurserymen, Dorking, again ex¬ 
hibited a fine bunch of their seedling White Grape. It was 
considered to have fully maintained the opinion expressed 
of it last year, viz., that it will prove a useful, early, good¬ 
setting white Grape, equal in flavour and berry to the White 
Muscadine , and superior in the form of bunch and general 
appearance to both that variety and the White Dutch Sweet¬ 
water, and equally superior to the latter in the important 
property of setting. It was remarked that frequently no 
seeds, and rarely more than one or two, were found, although 
their absence did not occasion any diminution in the size of 
the berries. 
Mr. Morris, gardener to Thomas White, Esq., Manor 
House, Wethersfield, Essex, exhibited three fine Melons, 
described as a cross between Bromham Hall and Trentham 
Hybrid. They were considered very fine, and excellent in 
flavour, but were not supposed to differ from the variety 
known as Fleming’s Trentham Netted Hybrid. 
Mr. Kitley, of Lyncombe Vale, near Bath, exhibited i 
twelve varieties of seedling Gooseberries. It was, however, j 
not found that any of the varieties were so super-excellent | 
in flavour as to be improvements on the already too nu- J 
merous kinds in cultivation, unless the latter were not j 
generally adapted to the soil of Bath and its neighbour- ; 
hood. 
A variety numbered 30, large, white, resembling White¬ 
smith in colour and flavour, but hairy, was the best of the 
group. 
Mr. Braid, nurseryman, Hendon, exhibited three fine 
dishes of well-grown Black Hamburgh Grapes , which were 
much admired. 
ON THE EGGS OF BEES. 
In a previous number we made some remarks on small 
drone bees, which are noticed by “ An Old Apiarian ” at 
page 220. Among other things he says, “ I no more believe 
the queen is aware of the sex or other peculiarity of the egg 
than a bird in laying, or a female of her unborn offspring.” 
This is lowering her instinct, indeed, even beneath that of 
the queen wasp, whose nest contains only two sorts of cells, 
while honey-combs contain four, though only three of them 
are for eggs. The queen bee’s mode of laying her eggs at 
certain periods is so well known that we need not mention 
it, though it is at variance with the assertion of the writer, 
who quotes from Huber in favour of his notion “ that the 
bodies of queens are shortened when fecundation has been i 
retarded, whilst the first two rings next the thorax are un¬ 
commonly enlarged.” Upon this he observes : “ Here then, j 
to my mind, is an explanation of the mystery. The poor i 
queen is disabled from depositing her eggs in any cells but j 
large ones. . . . The workers’ cells are, of course, rendered ! 
unavailable for breeding, and hence the perplexing theory 
as to the sole propagation of drones.” 
Perplexing indeed, for such is contrary to his own words, 
and also to the false statement of Huber. He says : “ All 
this is notoriously erroneous, Dr. Dunbar, Dr. Bevan, and 
Mr. Wighton himself having, with others, observed that the 
order of laying is frequently disturbed, the queens depositing 
an egg one minute in a worker’s, and the next in a drone’s 
cell.” 
Again, we cannot for a moment agree with the notion that 
a “ single kind of egg is requisite for the production of 
queens, drones, and workers.” This is the first time we 
have heard such an assertion, although the writer says, “ All 
reasoning seems to me .... to favour this theory.” 
We know of only one false reason, and that is, an enlarged 
worker’s cell in which there is a grub will produce a true 
female or queen bee. But as we have before stated in these 
pages that working bees are females, therefore the size of 
the cell does not, of course, alter the sex nor the appearance 
of the insects except in the greater length of their ab¬ 
domens. We would fain believe, however, that queen bees 
increase a little in bulk with age, contrary to the rule that 
insects bred from grubs take their true size when in that 
state; and the young ones have not the yellowish tinge on 
