Bees: their natural history and general management: comprising a full and experimental examination of the various systems of native and foreign apiarians; with an analytical exposition of the errors of the theory of Huber; containing, also, the latest discoveries & improvements in every department of the apiary, with a description of the most approved hives now in use

Front matter

irri y r" ssals sbhebistabaaa it oreerees Tt

i i i

H iii ii i iil ili

Introduction

Ir we take a retrospective view of the apiarian knowledge of the ancients as far back as Democritus, who lived four hundred and sixty years before Christ, we shall find that they directed their attention more to the natural history of the bee than to its economy. The major part, however, of their writings is lost, and the traces of them are only to be found in two works of the seventeenth century, one of which is entitled, ‘‘ Tue Portrait or tHe Honey Fty, its Virtues, Form, ann INSTRUCTIONS HOW TO REAP ADVANTAGE FROM THEM,” printed in 1646. The other was printed in Antwerp in 1649, and entitled, “Tur Sprinc oF THE Honsy Fy, DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS, IN WHICH WILL BE FOUND A CURIOUS, TRUE, AND NEW Hisrory oF THE ADMIRABLE AND NATURAL Conpuct or THE BEE, DRAWN SOLELY FROM THE Hanp or Experience.” The author of the first of these works is Alexander de Montfort, captain in the service of his imperial and catholic majesty, and who was born in the county of Luxemburg.

De Montfort estimates the number of authors who have written cn bees before his time, at between five

A 2 lV INTRODUCTION.

and six hundred; and he quotes a few, such as Galen, Aristeus, Aristomachus, Menus, Misald, Philistrius, Solin, John of Lebanon, &c. &c., whose works, however, on that subject are wholly unknown to us. He, however, cites a few with whose works we are conversant, viz. Aristotle, Columella, Varro, Moufet *, Aldrovandust, &c. &c.

The writings of De Montfort are so far valuable, that they unite the romantic reveries of the ancients with some weak scintillations of modern knowledge. Some of the ancients imagined that the bees were bred from the purest juice which could be extracted from the flowers in summer; others conceived that they were bred from putrid animals, an opinion entertained by Virgil in his Georgics. They were acquainted with the existence of one superior bee, whom they called the king, and who was supposed to originate from a flower or an animal more distinguished and noble than that from which the common bees originated. They regarded the drones or males as lazy, idle flies, of no particular use, and in some degree actually noxious, and only fit to be exterminated. They called them hornets, or flees of an ugly shape. When they saw two queens in a swarm, they believed that one of them was

* Thomas Moufet, an English physician, who died about 1600, known by a work written in Latin, entitled, “ Taearrum InseEctoruM.” Londini, 1634, in fol. with plates.

+ A celebrated professor of physic at Bologna, one of the many authors whose researches into natural history have been most extensive. His works amount to thirty volumes in folio. They, however, did not enrich him, for he died blind in the hospital at Bologna at the age of eighty.

INTRODUCTION. Vv a false king or a tyrant; they therefore called him the usurping prince who plays on the flute to divert the bees ; all due homage was, however, paid to him.

At the close of the seventeenth century, three celebrated naturalists appeared. Swammerdam, a Dutch physician, Maraldi, an astronomer, and Ferchault de Reaumur, members of the Academy of Sciences, who, by their researches and dissections, began to uplift the veil which had hitherto concealed from us the most important and interesting features of the natural history of the bee. They discovered that there were males and females amongst the bees, and from that period, the theory of De Montfort was admitted to be founded on truth.

Amongst those who in later times have written on bees, may be distinguished principally Schirach, who discovered that the bees who have lost their queen can raise another for themselves from larve of their own kind, by imparting to them a peculiar kind of nourishment. (2) Riems, who discovered that there are common bees, which lay eggs. (3) De Braw, who attempted to establish by experiments and specious arguments, that the eggs laid by the queen are fecundated by the drone in the manner of fish; and lastly, Butler, who attributed to the bees a knowledge of the art of solfaing.

This may be considered as the second epoch of the natural history of the bee.

At the close of the eighteenth century, Mr. Huber, a blind naturalist, appeared, who directed his servant, or his servant directed him in those researches, for the supposed verity of which a surreptitious fame has been

Ad vi INTRODUCTION.

awarded him, and which has placed him on the pinnacle of apiarian science, an eminence on which he has been undeservedly elevated by a host of commentators, encyclopedists, editors, and compilers, who have been led away by the apparent originality of his pretended discoveries; but who never deemed it necessary to devote any portion of their time or ability in the investigation of the principles of that theory, of the truth of which they expressed their unqualified assent. If, in the course of the ensuing work, we may have laid ourselves open to the charge of having applied the lash of ridicule too severely upon this falsely celebrated naturalist, we can only answer, in extenuation of that transgression, that we have been encouraged to the commission of it by the thorough conviction, arising from an experience of above forty years, that the majority of the vaunted discoveries of Huber are the result of fiction and delusion, founded on obsolete theories and antiquated prejudices. The man who will assert, that from his own evidence he has heard the queen bee speak the French language,—that he has seen the queen bee place herself in such an attitude as to strike the bees motionless,—that he has seen the queen bees for six consecutive nights engaged in a duel,—that he has seen fortifications erected by the bees; we affirm, that the man who will tell us, and call upon us in a dogmatical tone to believe him, that ten hives will warm an apartment, and twelve a green-house if the bees be well shaken,—that the queen bee is sometimes afflicted with the ague,—that he has seen a bee construct a cell from the foundation to the coping, with numerous other similar

INTRODUCTION. Vil fooleries, possesses but a very slight claim indeed to the character of a profound or accurate naturalist. We are bold enough to declare, that the discoveries of Huber are not only improbable, but even impossible; and it is on the basis of that knowledge that we have so unequivocally expressed our dissent to the principal points of the theory of Huber. We have, however, fearlessly thrown down the gauntlet to the advocates of Huber, and although we may stand single-handed in the contest, we fight under the banners of truth, and as such we despair not of the victory.

If an individual, with the view of acquiring some knowledge of the natural history of the bee, or of its management, consult the works published by the “Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,” the ‘«‘Naturalist’s Library,” the works of Bagster, Bevan, or any of the periodicals which casually treat upon the subject, will he not rise from the study of them with his mind surcharged with falsities and mystification ? Will he not discover throughout the whole of them a servile acquiescence in the opinions and discoveries of one man, however at variance those opinions and discoveries may be with truth or probability; and if he enter upon the discussion with his mind free from prejudice, will he not experience that an outrage has been committed upon his reason, in calling upon him to give his assent to positions and principles, which at best are merely assumed, but to which he is called upon dogmatically to subscribe his acquiescence as the indubitable results of experience, skill, and ability? Huber may have attempted to amuse and astonish

Aa vill INTRODUCTION.

the inexperienced apiarian with the miraculous rearing of a queen bee in a glass cell, and he may have thrown over his description of it all the varnish of direct experimental knowledge; but the editors of the works above alluded to, instead of disgracing their pages by the admission of such a visionary tale, should boldly and indignantly have declared, that from their own experience in the natural economy of the insect, they were able to pronounce the circumstances as related by Huber to be directly impossible, and the whole of them based on fiction and imposition.

If we examine the account which Huber gives of his invention of the royal jelly, the existence and efficacy of which are fully acquiesced in by the aforesaid editors, to what other conclusions are we necessarily driven, than that they are the dupes of a visionary enthusiast, whose greatest merit consists in his inventive powers, no matter how destitute those powers may be of all affinity with truth or probability? Before, however, those editors bestowed their unqualified assent on the existence of this royal jelly, did they stop to put to themselves the following questions ?—By what kind of bee is it made? Whence is it procured? Is it a natural or an elaborated substance? If natural, from what source is it derived? If elaborated, in what stomach of the bee is it to be found? How is it administered? What are its constituent principles? Is its existence optional or definite? Whence does it derive its miraculous power of converting a common egg into a royal one ?— Will any of the aforesaid editors publicly answer these questions? and ought they not to

INTRODUCTION. 1X have been able to answer them, before they so unequivocally expressed their belief in its existence, its powers and administration? Huber declares that he has procured some globules of this royal jelly, and that he administered it @ la facon des abeilles ; the aforesaid editors have believed him, and on his authority alone are the existence and powers of the jelly admitted into the natural history of the bee.

In the prosecution of the interesting inquiry relative to the fecundation of the queen bee, we may perhaps be accused of having committed some slight offence against the rules of decency, and we acknowledge that the portion of the work which treats of that particular subject, was objected to by one of the most eminent publishers of the present day, as not being exactly suitable for the female eye. With every disposition, however, to accede to the opinion of that highly experienced individual, we cannot refrain from asking, why the same latitude should not be granted to us, which has been awarded to others? In every contested point relative to the fecundation of an animal, and in no one is that point involved in deeper mystery than in the queen bee, we do not see how it is possible to steer wholly clear of those expressions, illustrative of the subject, which under any other circumstances would be considered as offensive to decency. How, may we ask, was it possible for us to examine or refute the theory of Huber, or of any other naturalist relative to the disputed point of the fecundation of the queen bee, were we, from a fastidious notion of delicacy, to be debarred the use of that language by which our

AS x INTRODUCTION, ideas could be expressed on the subject. Let it also be considered, that it is a subject on which the female pen has been engaged, even to the most minute investigation of the anatomy of the insect, and surely that which was permissible in a female writer, may be allowed in one of the opposite sex.

In regard to the work now offered to the public, our aim has been chiefly to expose the fallacies and contradictions of the Huberian system, to simplify the mechanical operations of the apiary, and thereby to stimulate those who are already engaged in the culture of the bee to greater exertions, and induce others to undertake it, from a full exposition of the great advantages to be derived from it, not only in an individual, but in a national point of view, and finally, to render this country independent of all foreign supply of the produce of the bee. i

Chapter I. The Common Bee

PAGE General character of the bee—Huber’s account of the bee— Butler’s female monarchy—Skill of the bees in music— Powers given to the bees by Huber—System of Schirach —Objections to it—The queen bee lays every egg in the hive—Contrariety of opinion respecting the bee— Opinions of the German apiarians—German bee gardens—Erroneous management of Bushman—Bonner’s discovery of little drones—The common bees take no part in the multiplication of their species—The common bee, according to Huber, is a female—Arguments against it—The common bee a decided neuter—Different species of bees—Their history according to Huber—The working bees are endowed with ovaries—Eggs generated in some and not in others—The administration of royal jelly—Efficacy of royal jelly—The female workers, according to Huber, lay only male eggs—Discovery of Mademoiselle Jurine— Common bees are imperfect females—Their imperfection investigated—Discovery of Mr. Epignes— Organization of the common bee—Erroneous statement of Huber in regard to the collection of farina—Its reputation—The honey bag —The venom vesicle-~ Description of the sting—Remedies for it—Prussian remedy for the sting—Opinion of Lombard—(Note)—Bonner not affected by the stings of hees— Opinion of L’ Abbé della Roecca—Hives of bees made use of as instruments of war—Account of Pigneron—Only one species of bees in England—Its general character—Its division of labour according to Huber—His discovery of black bees—The opinion of Rennie and Kirby respecting them—The existence of the black bees said by Kirby to be confirmed by Thorley — The same refuted—The superficial knowledge of Kirby in the natural history of the bee—The system of Huber, z regard to the existence of A xii CONTENTS.

PAGE several species of bees, not founded on truth— Difference in the size of the bee accounted for—Singular hypothesis of Huber in regard to the nurse bees—Examination of the disputed points—Study of the natural history of the bee by the ancients—By Swammerdam, Miraldi, Reaumur, Bonner, and Schirach— Interest attached to the study of the bee... :ss-cocsescerccesccisnsssecacere 1

CHAPTER: If.

THE QUEEN BEE.

The queen bee the mother of all the inmates of the hive— Organic structure of the queen bee—Position of the eggs in her ovarium—lInvestigation of the French and English apiarians—The fecundation of the queen according to the system of Huber—Difficulties attending that system—The queen begins to lay her eggs in January—Bostel an advocate for the self-fecundation of the queen—The drone determined to be the male bee—The ovarium of the queen, according to Huber, fecundated for the whole of her life by a single act of coition with the drone—Numerical fecundity of the queen bee (note)—Number of oviducts in the ovarium of the queen—Number of eggs in the ovarium—The earliest appearance of eggs in the ovarium—Some drones survive the winter, according to Bonner—Denied by Sir John Sinclair—The sexual intercourse of the queen and the drone advocated by the French apiarians—Remarks of the Monthly reviewers (note)— Number of eggs laid by the queen in an hour—Liittichau an eye-witness of the act of coition—Detection of the drone in the fecundation of the egg—Microscopical examination of the seminal matter—The fecundation of the egg in the cell confirmed by Debraw—Theory of Swammerdam—The hypothesis of L’Abbé della Rocea relative to the copulation of the queen and the drone (note)—The queen bee never leaves the hive—The contrary asserted by Huber—The period of her absence from the hive— Effect of her absence on the bees—The drone, according to Huber, dies after copulation — Singular discovery of Huber in regard to the drone—Experiment of Huber with some young queens—The young queens depart with the swarms—Confirmed by Swammerdam—Contradiction of Huber relative to the old and young queens—The young queen commences to lay her eggs immediately on being settled in the hive—Experiment to determine the same— Experiment of Huber with the queen and drone—Inconsistency of the experiment—Queen bees, Huber, bred in October—Experiment ther.

according to eon—lIts fal-

CONTENTS.

lacy—The system of retarded impregnation—Its effect on the early or late ovipositing of the queen—The disproportion of males to females in a hive considered—The young queen leaves the hive twenty-four hours after her birth— Opinion of Miles—Construction of the cell in which a queen is born—Exact situation of the cell in the hives— Different stages of the growth of a queen—Period of a bee arriving at maturity— Manner in which the queen lays her eggs—The system of the egg fecundated in the cell by the drone—Analogy between the wasp and the bee— Experiment to determine the fecundation of the egg—Hypothesis of Mr. Ducarne—Fructified eggs remain in the brood combs during the winter—The queen bee leaves the hive if there be no vacant cells in which to deposit her eggs—Remedy for that defect—Repugnance of the queen bee to sting— Attachment of the bees to their queen—The ceremony of laying the eggs according to Huber—Establishment of the guards—Period of depositing the eggs— Temperature of the hive—Nutt on the temperature of a hive—The eggs hatched the third day after their deposition—Progress of the bee to maturity..............