Manual of the apiary

by Albert John Cook

I presume, that in all the future, Huber's statement that the queen must take wing to be impregnated, will remain unrefuted. Yet it will do no harm to keep trying. Success may come. Mating, too, in green-houses or rooms is also impracticable. I have given this thorough trial. The drones are incorrigible cowards, and their inordinate fear seems even to overcome the sexual desires.

If the queen fails to find an admirer the first day, she will go forth again and again till she succeeds. Huber stated that after twenty-one days the case is hopeless. Bevan states that if impregnated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first she will be largely a drone-laying queen. That such absolute dates can be fixed in either of the above cases is very questionable. Yet, all experienced breeders know that queens kept through the winter as virgins are sure to remain so. It is quite likely that the long inactivity of the spermatheca wholly or in part paralyzes it, so that queens that are late in mating cannot impregnate the eggs as she desires. This would accord with what we know of muscular organs. Berlepsch believed that a queen that commenced laying as a virgin could never lay impregnated eggs, even though she afterwards mated. Langstroth thought that he had observed to the contrary.

If the queen be observed after a successful "wedding tour," she will be seen to bear the marks of success in the pendant drone appendages, consisting of the penis, the yellow cul-de-sacks, and the hanging thread-like ducts.

It is not at all likely that a queen, after she has met a drone, ever leaves the hive again except that she leaves with a swarm. Some of the observing apiarists think that an old queen may be again impregnated. The fact that queens, with clipped wings, are as long fertile as others, makes me think that cases which have led to such conclusions are capable of other explanation.

If the queen lays eggs before meeting the drones, or if for any reason she fails to mate, her eggs will only produce male bees. This strange anomaly—development of the eggs without impregnation—was discovered and proved by Dzierzon, in 1845. Dr. Dzierzon, who, as a student of practical and scientific apiculture, must rank with the great Huber, is a Roman Catholic priest of Carlesmarkt, Germany. This doctrine—called parthenogenesis, which means produced from a virgin—is still doubted by some quite able bee-keepers, though the proofs are irrefragable: 1st. Unmated queens will lay eggs that will develop, but drones always result. 2d. Old queens often become drone-layers, but examination shows that the spermatheca is void of seminal fluid. Such an examination was first made by Prof. Siebold, the great German anatomist, in 1813, and later by Leuckart and Leidy. I have myself made several such examinations. The spermatheca can easily be seen by the unaided vision, and by crushing it on a glass slide, by compressing with a thin glass cover, the difference between the contained fluid in the virgin and impregnated queen is very patent, even with a low power. In the latter it is more viscid and yellow, and the vesicle more distended. By use of a high power, the active spermatozoa or germ-cells become visible. 3d. Eggs in drone-cells are found by the microscopist to be void of the sperm-cells, which are always found in all other fresh-laid eggs. This most convincing, and interesting observation, was first made by Von Siebold, at the suggestion of Berlepsch. It is quite difficult to show this. Leuckart tried before Von Siebold, at Berlepsch's apiary, but failed. I have also tried to discover these germ-cells in worker-eggs, but as yet have been unsuccessful. Siebold has noted the same facts in eggs of wasps. 4th. Dr. Dönhoff, of Germany, in 1855, took an egg from a drone-cell, and by artificial impregnation produced a worker-bee. Such an operation, to be successful, must be performed as soon as the egg is laid.

Parthenogenesis, in the production of males, has also been found by Siebold to be true of other bees and wasps, and of some of the lower moths, in the production of both males and females. While the great Bonnet first discovered what may be noticed on any summer day, all about us, even on the house-plants at our very windows, that parthenogenesis is best illustrated by the aphides or plant lice. In the fall males and females appear, which mate, when the female lays eggs, which in the spring produce only females; these again produce only females, and thus on, for several generations, till with the cold of autumn come again the males and females. Bonnet observed seven successive generations of productive virgins. Duval noted nine generations in seven months, while Kyber observed production exclusively by parthenogenesis in a heated room for four years. So, we see, that this strange and almost incredible method of increase, is not rare in the great insect world.

About two days after she is impregnated, the queen, under normal circumstances, commences to lay, usually worker-eggs, and as the condition of the hive seldom impels to swarming the same summer, so that no drones are required, she usually lays no others the first season.

It is frequently noticed that the young queen at first lays quite a number of drone-eggs. Queen-breeders often observe this in their nuclei. This continues for only a few days. This does not seem strange. The act of forcing the sperm-cells from the spermatheca is muscular and voluntary, and that these muscles should not always act promptly at first, is not strange, nor is it unprecedented. Mr. Wagner suggested that the size of the cell determined the sex, as in the small cells the pressure on the abdomen forced the fluid from the spermatheca. Mr. Quinby also favored this view. I greatly question this theory. All observing apiarists have known eggs to be laid in worker-cells, ere the cell was hardly commenced, when there could be no pressure. In case of queen-cells, too, if the queen does lay the eggs—as I believe—these would be unimpregnated, as the cell is very large. I know the queen sometimes passes from drone to worker-cells very abruptly while laying, as I have witnessed such a procedure—the same that so greatly rejoiced the late Baron of Berlepsch, after weary hours of watching—but that she can thus control at the instant this process of adding or withholding the sperm-cells, certainly seems not so strange as that the spermatheca, hardly bigger than a pin-head, could supply these cells for months, yes, and for years. Who that has seen the bot-fly dart against the horse's legs, and as surely leave the tiny yellow egg, can doubt but that insects possess very sensitive oviducts, and can extrude the minute eggs just at pleasure. That a queen may force single eggs, at will, past the mouth of the spermatheca, and at the same time add or withhold the sperm-cells, is, I think, without question, true. What gives added force to this view, is the fact that other bees, wasps and ants exercise the same volition, and can have no aid from cell-pressure, as all the eggs are laid in receptacles of the same size. But the Baron of Berlepsch, worthy to be a friend of Dzierzon, has fully decided the matter. He has shown that old drone cells are as small as new worker-cells, and yet each harbors its own brood. Very small queens, too, make no mistakes. With no drone-cells, the queen will sometimes lay drone-eggs in worker-cells, in which drones will then be reared. And will, if she must, though with great reluctance, lay worker-eggs in drone-cells.

Before laying an egg, the queen takes a look into the cell, probably to see if all is right. If the cell contains any honey, pollen, or an egg, she usually passes it by, though when crowded, a queen will sometimes, especially if young, insert two or three eggs in a cell, and sometimes, in such cases, she drops them, when the bees show their dislike of waste, and appreciation of good living, by making a breakfast of them. If the queen finds the cell to her liking, she turns about, inserts her abdomen, and in an instant the tiny egg is glued, in position ([Fig, 26, b]) to the bottom of the cell.

The queen, when considered in relation to the other bees of the colony, possesses a surprising longevity. It is not surprising for her to attain the age of three years in the full possession of her powers, while they have been known to do good work for five years. Queens, often at the expiration of one, two, three or four years, depending on their vigor and excellence, either cease to be fertile, or else become impotent to lay impregnated eggs—the spermatheca having become emptied of its sperm-cells. In such cases the workers usually supersede the queen; that is they destroy the old queen, ere all the worker-eggs are gone, and take of the few remaining ones to start queen-cells, and thus rear young, fertile and vigorous queens.