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.
Eggs and Larva.
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.
