While the name of the late Baron Von Berlepsch will always stand in the front rank of apiarists, he never gave the world any description of a movable frame hive, until Mr. Langstroth had applied for a patent, and not until the Langstroth hive was largely in use.
It has been claimed that Mr. Andrew Harbison invented and used in his father's apiary, previous to 1851, the Langstroth hive. In the Dollar Newspaper for January 21, 1857, a brother, Mr. W. C. Harbison, who also lived with his father at the time the invention is said to have been made, says: "I will venture the prediction that both Quinby's hive and mine will ere long be cast aside, to give place to a hive constructed in such a manner that the apiarian can have access to every part of the hive at pleasure, without injury to the colony. In this particular both Mr. Quinby and myself have singly failed. The invention of such a hive was reserved for Mr. Langstroth." It is significant that J. S. Harbison, another brother, who was also with his father at the time, in his "Bee Culture," San Francisco, 1861, speaks of the Langstroth hive, p. 149, but not of that of his brother. It has also been claimed that W. A. Flanders, Martin Metcalf, and Edward Townley, each invented this hive prior to Mr! Langstroth's invention. Yet, each of these gentlemen wrote a book, in which no mention is made of such an invention. Well might Mr. Langstroth say, "I can well understand what Job meant when he said, 'O! that my enemy had written a book.'" It is also stated that Mr. A. F. Moon was a prior inventor of this hive. Mr. Moon's own testimony, that he not only abandoned his invention, being unable to secure straight combs, but even forgot all about it, till it was discovered in an old rubbish pile, shows that he did nothing that would, in court, overthrow Mr. Langstroth's claims, or that in the least conferred any benefit upon bee-keepers. Mr. Maxwell, of Mansfield, Ohio, was another who is said to have anticipated Mr. Langstroth. Yet Mr. Maxwell's own son swears that he helped his father make all his hives, and that his father never used a movable frame till after 1851. Solon Robinson thought his brother. Dr. Robinson, of Jamaica Plains, near Boston, made and used movable frame hives prior to 1852. The wife of Dr. Robinson testified that her husband bought a right to use the Langstroth hive, and with it made his first movable frames.
Every claim, both at home and abroad, to the invention of a practical movable frame hive, prior to that of Mr. Langstroth, when examined, is found to have no substantial foundation. All previous hives were plainly inferior to the improved Huber hive as described in Bevan, p. 106. It is a sad blot upon American apiculture, that he who raised it to the proud height which it occupies to-day, should have been shamefully defrauded of the just reward for his great invention. But it gives me the greatest pleasure to state, that by no possible word could I gather that Mr. Langstroth feels any bitterness towards those who seem wilfully to have stolen his invention, while with a mantle of charity, great as is his noble heart, he covers the thousands who either thought he had no valid claim, or else that the purchase of a right from others, entitled them to his invention. As an inventor and writer on apiculture, Mr. Langstroth will ever be held in grateful memory. How earnestly will American apiarists desire that he may be spared to us until he completes his autobiography, that we may learn how he arrived at his great discovery, and may study the methods by which he gleaned so many rich and valuable truths.
LECANIUM TULIPIFERÆ—Cook.
In the summer of 1870, this louse, which, so far as I know, has never yet been described, and for which I propose the above very appropriate name, tulipiferæ—the Lecanium of the tulip tree—was very common on the tulip trees about the College lawns. So destructive were they that some of the trees were killed outright, others were much injured, and had not the lice for some unknown reason ceased to thrive, we should soon have missed from our grounds one of our most attractive trees.
Since the date above given, I have received these insects, through the several editors of our excellent bee papers, from many of the States, especially those bordering the Ohio River. In Tennessee they seem very common, as they are often noticed in abundance on the fine stately tulip trees of that goodly State—in the South this tulip tree is called the poplar, which is very incorrect, as it is in no way related to the latter. The poplar belongs to the willow family; the tulip to the magnolia, which families are wide apart. In Pennsylvania the louse has been noticed on the cucumber tree—Magnolia acuminata.
Wherever the tulip-tree lice have been observed sucking the sap and vitality from the trees, there the bees have also been seen, lapping up a sweet juicy exudation, which is secreted by the lice. In 1870 I observed that our tulip trees were alive with bees and wasps, even as late as August, though the trees are in blossom only in June. Examination showed that the exuding sweets from these lice were what attracted the bees. This was observed with some anxiety, as the secretion gives off a very nauseating odor.
The oozing secretions from this and other lice, not only of the bark-louse family (Coccidæ), but of the plant-louse family (Aphidæ), are often referred to as honey-dew. Would it not be better to speak of these as insect secretions, and reserve the name honey-dew for sweet secretions from plants, other than those which come from the flowers?