Part 1

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE. Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by =equal signs=.

OLDEST BEE PAPER ESTABLISHED IN AMERICA IN 1861

THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL

DEVOTED TO SCIENTIFIC BEE-CULTURE AND THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF PURE HONEY.

VOL. XVII. CHICAGO, ILL., MARCH 23, 1881. No. 12.

Published every Wednesday, by

THOMAS G. NEWMAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR,

974 WEST MADISON ST., CHICAGO, ILL.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION:

WEEKLY—(52 numbers) =$2.00= a year, in advance. Three or Six Months at the same rate.

SEMI-MONTHLY—The first and third numbers of each month, at =$1.00= a year, in advance.

MONTHLY—The first number of each month, at =50 cents= a year, in advance.

☞ Any person sending a Club of six is entitled, to an extra copy (like the club) which may be sent to any address desired. Sample copies furnished _free_.

☞ Remit by money-order, registered letter, express or bank draft on Chicago or New York, payable to our order. Such _only_ are at our risk. Checks on local banks cost us 25 cents for collecting.

* * * * *

Free of postage in the United States or Canada. =Postage to Europe 50 cents extra.=

* * * * *

_Entered at Chicago post-office as second class matter._

For the American Bee Journal

What is the Royal Jelly?

C. J. ROBINSON.

I propose, by permission, to discuss in the columns of the BEE JOURNAL the hitherto puzzling problem: “What is royal jelly, that substance known to produce the transformation of worker larvæ to queens?” Profound scientists of Europe and this country have delved into the secrets of the grand problem, but none of them have handed down a satisfactory solution. Yet, it does not seem rational that the question is so obstruse as to forever remain past finding out what the so-called royal jelly consists of; the source from which it is derived; its definite action on larvæ; and whether it is administered by the workers as a nourishing aliment to larvæ; in royal cells, or for the purpose of impregnating the larvæ; (as pistilliferous flowers are impregnated with pollen) and thus develop a female bee fully qualified to reproduce males. The settled doctrine of writers on bee-matters is that it is chiefly due to the excess of food served to the larva by the workers that produces the transformation from worker to queen. Still no writer has ventured to assert that such is a demonstrated fact. The late Baron of Berlepsch, the able expounder of the Dzierzon Theory, and the most scientific and practical apicultural writer and experienced apiarist in all Europe, wrote thus:

“Every hypothesis, however, yet submitted from any quarter, rest chiefly upon the assumption that the development (of fertile workers and queens) has by some means been over-stimulated for a brief period, and as the result affects the sexual organs more especially, the quantity and quality of the food administered has been looked to as the exciting cause.”

If his assumption be admitted then individual female bees are very likely to be reproduced imperfectly developed in all the degrees between a rudimentary fertile worker up to a perfect queen. Furthermore, were it true that development depends on quantity of food or the over-stimulating caused by high feeding, the workers would be able to supply themselves with queens at all times; when on the contrary it is well known that workers cannot always perfect queens when furnished with everything necessary for that purpose except the impregnating principle—semen.

A full knowledge of the reproduction of the honey bee is of great importance, and at the very foundation of the science of bee-culture and of great value to those who intend to breed the superior races of bees, especially the principles of hybridizing so as to prevent their deterioration and improve the breeds. And it is of great moment to the science of entomology to determine whether insects are produced by parthenogenesis, as is believed, or by semen received by the male progenitors. As for myself, I have conclusive evidence that such queens as are reproduced by furnishing a colony of black bees with eggs laid by an Italian queen, is in some degree hybridized.

All of the points in the “Dzierzon Theory” have been demonstrated except his theory of the reproduction of bees, particularly drones and queens. It seems that he was sorely puzzled in his profound research to comprehend the laws involved in the strange phenomena—virgin queens reproducing male bees—and to dispose of the (to him) inexplicable point in his colossal theory, he jumped at a conclusion which was based upon the hypothetical doctrine advanced by Professors Von Seibold, Leuckart, and Dr. Donhoff, the fathers of the theory called “Parthenogenesis,” that is procreating without male sperm. It was during the period that Dr. Dzierzon was making public his theory that Mr. Elihu Kirby, of Henrietta, N. Y., attempted to make known the result of his long-time and attentive research into the principles of reproduction of the different races of honey bees. He was a scientific apiarist of long experience, and enthusiastic in the cause of progressive bee-culture. Not until 1861 was there published or circulated in this country a periodical devoted to bee affairs and scarcely no attention was given to scientific bee-culture at that time. Mr. K. communicated to the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL at different times just after its advent, the discoveries he had made relative to the reproduction of bees, but not much attention was given it further than a brief notice by the editor, the lamented Samuel Wagner, who, like the great Dzierzon, seemed not to comprehend the evolution of the reproduction of insects.

During the period of 1859–63, Mr. Kirby was in failing health, and when in the summer of 1863, he was about to bid adieu to his long-cherished theme and go from the altar of home on earth to a heavenly inheritance, he besought me to further his designs and he committed to my charge his new theory of the reproduction of drones and female bees. The result of the case thus consigned to me is as follows, conclusions that I have come to derive from careful observations for many seasons, viz., _videlicet_.

To produce drones the workers fecundate the worker larvæ in royal cells with drone’s semen, which gives the elements of queens. The workers supply the said larva with animal secretion, water, bee-bread and honey, until it secretes sufficient material for a queen, and when the larva arrives at maturity it is then metamorphosed to an egg substance, from thence it passes to a chrysalis state, and in the pupa state her ovary is formed and impregnated with semen retained in the larva state imparting the elements of life. She then leaves her cell and is prepared to lay eggs that produce drones only, without further fecundation, and when the drones are matured from their natural genital propensities deposit their semen in the queen’s spermatheca to enable her to fecundate her full grown eggs to produce workers, and also deposit semen where the workers can obtain it in the abscence of the drones, to perfect queens, and for storing it in their combs, where it retains its vitality at least from the time that the drones are expelled until they are reproduced the following season. It is ascertained that the drones and queens can be hybridized by their drone progenitors in the embryo state, which is conclusive evidence of their being fecundated with drones’ semen.

To produce workers the drones deposit their sperm in the queen’s spermatheca while on the wing (and on top, clasping the drone’s back to herself) and from thence she fecundates full grown eggs, as they pass the mouth of her spermatheca on the way out of her oviduct, and by the combining of the elements of the drone and worker in one, by which the worker is produced. Thus, there can be no logical reasoning in saying that the workers are produced by semen, and the drones and queens are produced without semen.

To produce queens the worker fecundates the worker larvæ in royal cells with drone’s semen which gives the elements of the drone, worker and queen, combined in one, in the larval state; it secretes in its growth the proper material for perfect queens, and when the larva arrives at maturity it is transformed to an egg-form, and then to a chrysalis, and in that state her embryo ovary is formed and impregnates in the upper points or sacks of her ovary, and contains the elements of myriads of drone egg germs before leaving her cell, and her physiology is changed in her transition from the chrysalis state to a perfect queen, and is qualified before leaving her cell to lay eggs that will produce drones only. To be fully qualified to produce workers she must receive a deposit of semen from the drone in her spermatheca. If once filled with semen it is efficacious through life, and qualifies her to fecundate the full grown drone eggs as they pass the mouth of her spermatheca, and causes them to produce workers, and to lay all the eggs, both male and female and workers, that the colony may require. It is ascertained that the embryo drone, workers and queen can each be hybridized in the ovary, egg or larva state, which is communicated to the whole production. I think the evidence conclusive in the reproduction of the queen. The fertile workers are produced by the workers taking the drone’s semen into their stomachs, and from thence it is transmitted to their embryo ovary, and fecundates it, which gives the elements of life to the progeny, and qualifies them to lay eggs which produce drones only, unless the eggs are further fecundated by being brought into contact with semen. It appears that the young queen’s ovary on leaving her cell, and the ovary of the fertile worker when fecundated, are identical in the production of drone eggs. Therefore, the evidence is that semen is the agent in both cases.

I wish to call attention particularly to the following points: 1st. The embryo ovary of young queens must be fructified before she leaves her cell with drone’s semen, which gives the elements of life to her drone progeny, and forms the basis for the whole progeny of bees. To produce the 3 sexes of bees there are 3 distinct fecundations. 1st. The embryo ovary of the pupa queen to produce the drones. 2d. The full grown egg to produce the workers. 3d. The worker larva is fecundated by the workers with semen, given off by the drones to produce the queens. And all in the larval state the secrete sufficient material to perfect in their transition either drones, workers or queens, and they each can be hybridized in the embryo state.

2d. In the reproduction of bees there are 2 distinct egg forms: 1st. The eggs that produce the larva. 2d. The larva when it arrives at maturity is transformed to an egg substance, of which it forms the chrysalis that produces the perfect bees and their sexes.

3d. It requires 3 states of existence to perfect the organism of bees. 1st. The larva. 2d. The chrysalis. 3d. The perfect bee. The queen first deposits her eggs in the proper cells or utricals in which the larva is hatched and supplied by the workers with animal secretion and food until their transition to an egg substance or chrysalis.

I will propose the following question for consideration: What is it that is found in the royal jelly that is possessed of such impregnating powers as to cause the ovaries of the workers to produce drone eggs?

Richford, N. Y., March 14, 1881.

For the American Bee Journal.

Putting Wires into Comb Foundation.

J. G. WHITTEN.

Mr. John F. Cowan, in his article on “The Practical use of Foundation,” published in the BEE JOURNAL of March 9, says: “It has been practically demonstrated to my satisfaction that these results can only be obtained by Mr. Given’s method of introducing the wires, and if by a happy combination the Dunham foundation could be made and wired by the Given or a similar process, the foundation controversy would be virtually ended.”

I would like to say to Mr. Cowan and others who may be interested, that last season I hived about 40 full sized natural colonies, on Dunham foundation, in Quinby frames, prepared in the following manner: The frame is wired by sewing in 2 horizontal wires, spaced off so that there will be 3 equal spaces from the top bar down. I use a triangular top bar and fasten the foundation by pressing it down to the bar with the thumb and then running a stream of melted wax and rosin over it. Then by running a wheel, made of a cent, over the wire I imbed the wire into the foundation; this also forms a groove in the foundation in which I run a stream of melted wax which covers the wire, and when drawn out will be perfect and will neither sag nor break out by extracting. There should be a good half inch of space between the foundation and bottom bar, as it will settle enough to bulge the comb if left full length. To give it a thorough trial I hived 2 heavy natural colonies in one hive with the mercury at 90 in the shade and basswood honey coming in very fast, and when drawn out every comb was perfect. By bending a spoon so that it will pour a small stream and with a little practice, you will find it a short task to fasten the foundation in the frames.

Genoa, N. Y., March 14, 1881.

For the American Bee Journal.

Importing Bees from Italy.

CHAS. DADANT.

Mr. A. Salisbury, under the above heading, says that “It is no longer a question: the Italian bee of Italy is not a distinct race.... Later investigation proves the fact that there are black bees in Italy, as anywhere else, even in the vicinity of Rome itself.”

Mr. Jones, at the Convention in Cincinnati last fall, asserted that he had seen black bees at several places in Italy, even in the vicinity of Rome. All my inquiries, as well as the reports of prominent and disinterested bee-keepers of Italy, such as Mr. Mona and Dr. Dubini, prove that there are no hybrid bees in Italy, and, of course, no black bees.

Will Mr. Jones tell us in which apiaries he saw black bees? Of course, by black bees we understand entire colonies of black bees. Then, he saw also colonies of hybrid bees, for the mixing could not be prevented. But if Mr. Jones saw only a few black, or _seemingly black_ bees, in a colony, this circumstance, caused either by the dark contents of their stomachs, or by some other accidental cause, we cannot infer from it that there are black or impure bees in Italy. I hope that Mr. Jones will answer this question.

Mr. Jones adds that, in his opinion, the Italian bees were descended from the bees of Holy Land, or those on the Island of Cyprus. Such an opinion raises the question: Are the yellow bees from Cyprus, from Syria, or from Italy, the original bees; or the black bees, of more northern climates, the original bees, the yellow color being only an improvement?

According to the law of natural selection, the yellow bees of these three countries are about similar, because the three countries enjoy a mild climate. The idea of Mr. Jones’ that the Italian bees descended from the bees of Cyprus or of Syria, cannot be sustained, for it leads to the idea of large importations of bees from these countries, into Italy, at a time when the means of transportation were few, long and difficult.

The introduction of a few colonies of these bees into Italy would have been unable to effect the smallest change in the race then existing; for by our introduction of Italian bees we have experienced how hard it is to overcome the returning to the type which is prevalent in a country. Besides, although we have had too little time to study the habits of the Cyprian bees, having received our queens last summer only, we have noticed that, while they resemble in color the Italian, their habits are not the same. For instance, the Cyprian bees do not cling to the combs as persistently as do the Italians, and resemble more the blacks in this respect; the Cyprian queens, like the common queens, are more easily frightened, and more difficult to find, than the Italian queens.

As to their other qualities we are unable to say anything. It will take a few seasons to test them thoroughly. It is, therefore, desirable to see them tested by a great number of bee-keepers in comparison with Italian bees.

I read in the Italian bee paper, _L’Apicoltore_, for January, just received, that the Central Society of Italian Bee-Keepers will have an exhibition on the first of May, to which the bee-keepers are invited to send bees from every part of the country (probably to answer the assertion of Mr. Jones, that there are black bees in Italy), in order to compare the varieties which can exist on the entire peninsula. The report of the commission of this society will thus put an end to the discussions between those who contend that there are black bees in Italy, and those who say that the Italian bees are all pure. Yet, it is well to remember here, that in Italy, as well as in Germany, they count but two yellow rings; for they do not count as a ring the first segment, to which the thorax is attached.

Hamilton, Ill., Feb. 5, 1881.

For the American Bee Journal.

Bees and Grapes.

REV. M. MAHIN, D. D.

I notice that the question whether bees destroy sound grapes is again being discussed. I have been a bee-keeper for 11 years and during most of that time have raised grapes enough for family use, and I have given considerable time and attention to the question under discussion. All my observations go to show that bees do not puncture sound grapes. I have seen them sucking the juice from grapes that had been broken by birds, and have picked off the broken grape, and watched the result. The bees would run about over the bunch hunting for an opening, and finally abandon the search. Last season a great many grapes were destroyed or injured in this part of the country, and I gave the matter special attention. Many of the grapes cracked more or less from the effects of rains following dry weather, and many more were broken more or less by birds. As forage was scarce the bees worked industriously on these broken grapes until they were all gone. But on all the bunches there were some grapes that were not broken, and these remained on the vines until late in the season. After the juice had been sucked from all the broken skins I saw the bees for many days vainly searching for openings from which they might obtain the supplies they had been accustomed to draw from the broken fruit. These sound grapes remained on the vines, in some cases, for weeks after the bees had ceased to get anything from the broken ones. Now it is plain that the juice of these very ripe grapes would have been quite as acceptable to them as that from the ones they are accused of having punctured and destroyed. And to my mind it is clear that if they had punctured and destroyed as many as they are accused of doing, they would not have become suddenly reformed as the grapes became sweeter and more delicious. I will not affirm that the bees cannot puncture the skin of a grape, but I do affirm that as far as my very careful observation enables me to judge, they do not. And if I am correct in this the injury done to the grapes is very small. The injured grapes would spoil in a few days if the bees were not to touch them.

As far as I have been able to observe wasps, hornets, &c., do little injury to grapes. The mischief results mostly from the cracking of the skin, by a very few days, even, of wet weather after it has been dry for some time. The skin of the grapes becomes so full that a jar from the wind or from the alighting of a bird on the bunch, will cause them to crack, and then, if there is a dearth of honey, they are sure to be sucked dry by the bees, with more or less help from yellow jackets, hornets, and wasps. It is possible that in some cases the skins are cut by wasps, &c., but I think the cases are exceptional.

Huntington, Ind., March 4, 1881.

For the American Bee Journal.

The Use of Separators for Box Honey.

GREINER BROTHERS.

In starting an apiary it is of great importance to adopt a hive that will prove satisfactory to the manager, in all its features, for the present as well as for the future. It is not an easy matter after an apiary has been started and hives and appliances have accumulated, to change the sizes or dimensions of such, if they should not be satisfactory. In the different manifestations of the hive we find that it is necessary to have brood frames and sections interchangeable, in fact, it is still more convenient to have all the different parts of the hives as uniform as mechanical workmanship can produce them, so that frames, honey-boards, division-boards, covers, sections, mats, &c., may be picked up anywhere and adjusted to any hive desired.

The use of separators is another feature of this kind; if once adopted and the bees arranged accordingly, it may cause considerable trouble to remodel a lot of appliances, especially if separators of any perceptible thickness are used.

In the BEE JOURNAL for Feb. 2, Mr. Heddon gives some very good hints on “hive and section making,” but we can not endorse all his points, and in this article we refer in particular to his closing sentence.

It seems strange to us that Mr. Heddon pronounces separators “nuisances,” whilst other prominent bee-keepers, and we believe the majority, use them and advocate their use. It must certainly be a query to young beginners, who seek information amongst the contributors of the JOURNAL, to encounter such square contradictions. Our experience is about as follows:

The 2 first years of our experience in bee-keeping found us equipped with open surplus cases, we mean by surplus cases the adjustable half-story, with the proper number of frames containing sections. The seasons were good and the crops abundant, but the shape of a good share of our honey was anything but desirable; it was not uniform in thickness nor even; some being thick on one end and thin on the other, some were missed entirely, whilst the adjoining one bulged out to take up the space; in short, the variations were many.

To glass and crate this honey for market cost us considerable trouble and we concluded to try separators. The 25 cases we had prepared and used the next season at our honey apiary proved to be a success; the honey was “just splendid;” the sections in shape, thickness and weight were as near perfect as could be desired, and we decided at once to produce honey in no other way. However, we were not entirely satisfied; we knew separators were objected to by some bee-keepers on account of a smaller yield. Mr. Heddon says, on page 33 of the JOURNAL, “These separators cost me too great a portion of my surplus crop.”

To satisfy ourselves on this point we used the following season about 100 cases, rigged as the first 25, with separators, which we scattered in our different apiaries side by side with open ones. The result was that we noticed very little difference, if any, in the amount of honey stored, and the editor’s opinion, on page 59, was exactly our experience.

Again, Mr. Heddon claims the first cost and trouble of manipulating to be objectionable. We admit separators are an expense, but they need not be very costly. We use basswood, costing us less than a cent each, and even at twice that cost, would it not be economy then to expend a comparative small amount if we can thereby produce honey in much more attractive shape? Besides we claim separators lessen the trouble of manipulating instead of increasing it. The reason we use wood is because it is cheaper than metal and we believe better adapted, on account of its being the most natural material for bee-habitations.