1 Jaw., 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 29 
This injury may be of the kind mentioned by Charles Darwin as being 
inflicted by the bee upon the flowers of JLimulus, Stachys, Antirrhinwm, 
Lathyrus, as well as on those of other garden plants. He informs us, for 
instance, that he had seen large beds of these flowers “in which the petals were 
scratched by the hooked tarsi’ of this insect, and to such an extent that their 
“beauty was sadly defaced.’* 
It may be of a similar nature to that experienced by the blossoms of the 
rose, the flowers of which are oftentimes indtced to pass off prematurely as 
the result of the action of the bee in insinuating itself amongst their petals in 
quest of the pollen and nectar that are to be met with in this situation. 
Again, it may be of the kind that the above savant and others have noticed 
as suffered by many other bee-frequented flowers; these having holes gnawed 
through the corolla —or apposed corolla and calyx—that readier access may be 
- gained to the nectar that they contain; althoughit has been shown that honey 
bees preferably avail themselves of the openings already made by other bees, 
rather than execute perforations—such as are alluded to—themselves. But 
even in those instances in which the latter is what really happens, and the 
bees do not originate the damage mentioned, still much harm may follow their 
action, for the principal damage that in this case results from the particular 
method of attacking the blossoms mentioned does not consist in the infliction 
of a mere mechanical injury, but is of an indirect nature. Exclusive resort on 
the part of insects to such perforations, and neglect to avail themselves of the 
ordinary means of access to the nectar, causes, as is now known, flowers that 
require cross-fertilisation to fail to exhibit the favourable results that would, 
under ordinary circumstances, in which no artificial means of access occurred 
follow this food-securing act. j : 
Further, bees may accomplish a cross-fertilisation of flowers, in which 
those affording the pollen are not the most suitable of those available for acting 
in this capacity, as shown by the character of the fruit in which evidence of 
this cross is manifested. 
As yet another instance of injury occasioned by the honey. bee may be 
mentioned their habit of gnawing the surface of fruit and subsequently 
imbibing its juices through the perforations thus occasioned. The late 
Entomologist of the United States Department of Agriculture (C. V. Riley) 
has stated that his opinion concerning the question of Bees v. Fruit has been 
‘that under certain conditions bees will and do injure certain varieties of 
fruit.” H. G@. Tryon, of Willoughby, Ohio, a practical fruit-grower of many 
years’ standing, and one who kept several colonies of bees in connection with 
his orchard, has recorded regarding bees that he has observed that “the 
attack certain varieties of peaches with great avidity, working through the 
skin and eating into the flesh even before the fruit is thoroughly ripe, while 
other varieties, to our taste sweeter and. riper, are left untouched. Hale’s 
Early is always a favourite with them without reference to the supply of other 
food. Grapes they do not attack except under certain conditions.” § 
Now, the alleged damage to the orange that is attributed to the bee—viz. 
that which consists in “eating the very heart out of the blossoms”’—does not 
partake of the nature of any of the forms of injury above described. It may, 
* 0. Darwin: “The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom,” 
p. 425, London, 1876. i : 
+ On this subject the reader may consult CO. Darwin, op. cit., pp. 425-435. 
+ The reader, on mentally recurring to facts within his experience, may recall many instances 
of this description of injury. But, as bearing on the subject treated of, it may be mentioned that 
an influence of the pollen of the Scarlet Emperor Mandarin may be not infrequently remarked 
on the developed fruit of the ordinary round orange that displays itself in characters—additional 
to the one that consists in the assumption of a particular surface colouration—that are not 
always favoured. ‘This is doubtless due te successive visitations on the part of insects—and bees 
possibly amongst their number—to the flowers of these two citraceous plants. 
§H. G. Tryom, “Bees versus Fruit,” Insect Life, vol. i, p. 285 (1889): It must be 
admitted, however, with regard to the latter fruit, that the experiments conducted by N. W. 
McLain (cf. Annual Report, U.S. Dep. Agri. 1885, p. 336-9), having reference to the behaviour 
of bees towards grapes, place, as has been stated, the burden of proof, as far as this alleged 
pernicious habit is concerned, on the affirmative side. f 
. 
