Manual of the apiary

by Albert John Cook

The queen possesses a sting ([Fig, 11, d]) which is longer than that of the workers, and resembles that of the bumble-bees in being curved, and that of bumble-bees and wasps in having few and short barbs—the little projections which point back like the barb of a fish-hook, and which, in case of the workers, prevent the withdrawing of the instrument, when once fairly inserted. While there are seven quite prominent barbs on each shaft of the worker's sting, there are only three on those of the queen, and these are very short, and, as in a worker's sting, they are successively shorter as we recede from the point of the weapon. Aristotle says that the queen will seldom use her sting, which I have found true. I have often tried to provoke a queen's anger, but never with any evidence of success. Neighbour ([page 14, note]) gives three cases where queens used their stings, in one of which cases she was disabled from farther egg-laying. She stings with slight effect.

Fig. 16.

t—Tibia. p—Broadened tibia and basal tarsus. t s—Tarsal joints.

The queen, like the neuters, is developed from an impregnated egg, which, of course, could only come from a queen that had previously mated. These eggs are not placed in a horizontal cell, but in one specially prepared for their reception ([Fig, 26, i]). These queen cells are usually built on the edge of the comb, or around an opening in it, which is necessitated from their size and form, as usually the combs are too close together to permit their location elsewhere. These cells extend either vertically or diagonally downward, are composed of was mixed with pollen, and in size and form much resemble a pea-nut. The eggs must be placed in these cells, either by the queen or workers. Huber, who though blind had wondrous eyes, also witnessed the act. I have frequently seen eggs in these cells, and without exception in the exact position in which the queen always places her eggs in the other cells. John Hall, in the old work already referred to, whose descriptions, though penned so long ago, are wonderfully accurate, and indicate great care, candor, and conscientious truthfulness, asserts that the queen is five times as long laying a royal egg as she is the others. From the character of his work, and its early publication, I can but think that he had witnessed this rare sight. Some candid apiarists of our own time and country—E. Gallup among the rest—claim to have witnessed the act. The eggs are so well glued, and are so delicate, that, with Neighbour, I doubt the possibility of a removal. The opponents to this view base their belief on a supposed discord between the queen and neuters. This antagonism is inferred, and I have but little faith in the inference, or the argument from it. I know that when royal cells are to be torn down, and inchoate queens destroyed, the workers aid the queen in this destruction. I have also seen queens pass by unguarded queen-cells, and yet respect them. I have also seen several young queens dwelling amicably together in the same hive. Is it not probable that the bees are united in whatever is to be accomplished, and that when queens are to be destroyed all spring to the work, and when they are to live all regard them as sacred? It is true that the actions of bees are controlled and influenced by the surrounding conditions or circumstances, but I have yet to see satisfactory proof of the old theory that these conditions impress differently the queen and the workers. The conditions which lead to the building of queen-cells and the peopling of the same are—loss of queen, when a worker larva from one to four days old will be surrounded by a cell inability of a queen to lay impregnated eggs, her spermatheca having become emptied; great number of worker-bees in the hive; restricted quarters; the queen not having place to deposit eggs, or the workers little or no room to store honey and lack of ventilation, so that the hive becomes too close. These last three conditions are most likely to occur at times of great honey secretion.

A queen may be developed from an egg, or from a worker larva less than three days old. Mr. Doolittle has known queens to be reared from worker larvæ taken at four-and-a-half days from hatching. In this latter case, the cells adjacent to the one containing the selected larva are removed, and the larva surrounded by a royal cell. The development of the queen larva is much like that of the worker, soon to be detailed, except that it is more rapid, and is fed richer and more plenteous food, called royal jelly. This peculiar food, as also its use and abundance in the cell, was first described by Schirach, a Saxon clergyman, who wrote a work on bees in 1771. According to Hunter, this royal pabulum is richer in nitrogen than that of the common larvæ. It is thick, like rich cream; slightly yellow, and so abundant that the queen larva not only floats in it during all its period of growth, but quite a large amount remains after her queenship vacates the cell. We often find this royal jelly in incomplete queen-cells, without larvæ. Mr. Quinby suggests that this is stored for future use.

What a mysterious circumstance is this: These royal scions simply receive a more abundant and sumptuous diet, and occupy a more ample habitation—for I have more than once confirmed the statement of Mr. Quinby, that the direction of the cell is immaterial—and yet what a marvelous transformation. Not only are the ovaries developed and filled with eggs, but the mouth-organs, the wing's, the legs, and the sting, aye, and the size, form and habits are all wondrously changed. That the development of parts should be accelerated, and the size increased is not so surprising—as in breeding other insects I have frequently found that kind and amount of food, would hasten or retard growth, and might even cause a dwarfed imago—but that it should so essentially modify the structure, is certainly a rare and unique circumstance, hardly to be found except here and in related animals. Bevan has suggested that fertile workers', while larvæ, have received some of this royal jelly, from their position near a developing queen. Langstroth supposes that they receive some royal jelly, purposely given by the workers, and I had previously thought this reasonable, and probably true. But these pests of the apiarist, and especially of the breeder, almost always, so far as I have observed, make their appearance in colonies long queenless, and I have noticed a case similar to that given by Quinby, where these occurred in a nucleus where no queen had been developed. May it not be true, that a desire for eggs stimulates growth of the ovaries, growth of eggs in the ovarian tubes, and consequent ability to deposit. The common high-holder, Colaptes auratus—a bird belonging to the woodpecker family, usually lays five eggs, and only five; but let cruel hands rob her of these promises of future loved ones—and wondrous to relate, she continues to lay more than a score. One thus treated, here on the College campus, actually laid more than thirty eggs. So we see that animal desires may influence and move organs that are generally independent of the will.

The larval queen is longer and more rapid of development than the other larvæ. When developed from the egg—as in case of normal swarming—the larva feeds for five days, when the cell is capped by the workers. The infant queen then spins her cocoon, which occupies about one day. The end of the cocoon is left open. Some one has suggested that this is an act of thoughtful generosity on the part of the queen larva, thus to render her own destruction more easy, should the welfare of the colony demand it, as now a sister queen may safely give the fatal sting. The queen now spends nearly three days in absolute repose. Such rest is common to all cocoon-spinning larvæ. The spinning, which is done by a rapid motion to and fro of the head, always carrying the delicate thread, much like the moving shuttle of the weaver, seems to bring exhaustion and need of repose. She now assumes the nymph or pupa state ([Fig, 26, i]). At the end of the sixteenth day she comes forth a queen. Huber states that when a queen emerges, the bees are thrown into a joyous excitement, so that he noted a rise in the temperature of the hive from 92° F. to 104° F. I have never tested this matter accurately, but I have failed to notice any marked demonstration on the natal day of her lady-ship the queen, or extra respect paid her as a virgin. When queens are started from worker larvæ, they will issue as images in ten or twelve days from the date of their new prospects. Mr. Doolittle writes me that he has known them to issue in eight and one-half days.

As the queen's development is probably due to superior quality and increased quantity of food, it would stand to reason that queens started from eggs are preferable; the more so, as under normal circumstances, I believe, they are almost always thus started. The best experience sustains this position. As the proper food and temperature could best be secured in a full colony—and here again the natural economy of the hive adds to our argument—we should infer that the best queens would be reared in strong colonies, or at least kept in such colonies till the cells were capped. Experience also confirms this view. As the quantity and quality of food, and the general activity of the bees is directly connected with the full nourishment of the queen-larva, and as these are only at the maximum in times of active gathering—the time when queen-rearing is naturally started by the bees—we should also conclude that queens reared at such seasons are superior. My experience—and I have carefully observed in this connection—most emphatically sustains this view.

Five or six days after issuing from the cell—Neighbour says the third day—if the day is pleasant, the queen goes forth on her "marriage flight" otherwise she will improve the first pleasant day thereafter for this purpose. Huber was the first to prove that impregnation always takes place on the wing. Bonnet also proved that the same is true of ants, though in this case millions of queens and drones often swarm out at once. I have myself witnessed several of these wholesale matrimonial excursions among ants. I have also frequently taken bumble-bees in copulo while on the wing. I have also noticed both ants and bumble-bees to fall while united probably borne down by the expiring males. That butterflies! moths, dragon-flies, etc., mate on the wing is a matter of common observation. That it is possible to impregnate queens when confined, I think very doubtful. The queens will caress the drones, but the latter seem not to heed their advances. That this ever has been done I also question, though many think they have positive proof that it has occurred. Yet, as there are so many chances to be mistaken, and as experience and observation are so excessive against the possibility, I think that these may be cases of hasty or inaccurate judgment. Many, very many, with myself, have followed Huber in clipping the queen's wing, only to produce a sterile or drone-laying queen. Prof Leuckart believes that successful mating demands that the large air-sacks ([Fig, 2, f]) of the drones shall be filled, which he thinks is only possible during flight. The demeanor of the drones leads me to think, that the excitement of flight, like the warmth of the hand, is necessary to induce the sexual impulse.