Chapter XXXIII: Appendix: History of Movable Frames (1)

Movable frames have revolutionized bee-keeping, and so out-rank the reaper and mower, and equal the cotton-gin. Few inventions have exerted so powerful an influence upon the art which they serve. Their history will ever be a subject of exceeding interest to bee-keepers, and their inventor worthy the highest regard as the greatest benefactor of our art. In writing their history, I have no personal interest or bias, and am only impelled by a love of truth and justice. I am the more eager to write this history, as some of our apiarists, and they among the best informed and most influential (_American Bee Journal_, vol. 14, p. 380), are misinformed in the premises. In obtaining the data for this account, I am under many obligations to our great American master in apiculture. Rev. L. L. Langstroth, whose thorough knowledge and extensive library have been wholly at my command.

We are informed by George Wheeler, in his "Journey into Greece," published in 1682, page 411, that the Greeks had partial control of the combs. "The tops" of the willow hives "are covered with broad flat sticks. Along each of these sticks the bees fasten their combs; so that a comb may be taken out whole."

Swammerdam had no control of the comb, nor had Réaumur. The latter used narrow hives, which contained but two combs; but these were stationary. Huber was the first to construct a hive which gave him control of the combs and access to the interior of the hive. In August, 1879, Huber wrote to Bonnet as follows: "I took several small fir boxes, a foot square and fifteen lines wide, and joined them together by hinges, so that they could be opened and shut like the leaves of a book. When using a hive of this description, we took care to fix a comb in each frame, and then introduced all the bees."--(Edinburgh edition of Huber, p. 4). Although Morlot and others attempted to improve this hive, it never gained favor with practical apiarists.

The first person to adjust frames in a case appears to have been Mr. W. Augustus Munn, of England. I have in my possession a letter from Mr. Munn, dated November 9th, 1863, in which he states that the hive "had been in use since 1834." The first printed description of any of his hives appeared in the "Gardener's Chronicle" for 1843. This article was written by a lady, and signed "E. M. W." Its premature publication made it impossible for Mr. Munn to secure a patent in Great Britain. In 1843 he secured a patent in France. The hive patented is fully described in his "Description of the Bar and Frame Hive," published in London, in 1844. There is also a figure (Fig. 111). I copy from the work which is before me, pp. 7 and 8: "An oblong box is formed, about thirty inches long, sixteen inches high, and twelve inches broad. One of the long sides is constructed to open with hinges, and to hang on a level with the bottom. As many grooves half an inch broad, half an inch deep, and about 9½ inches long, are formed 1⅛ inches apart on the inside of the bottom of the box, as its length will admit. At the top are corresponding grooves to those made in the bottom of the box. The bee-frames are made of half inch mahogany, being 12 inches high, 9 inches long, and not more than half an inch broad, sliding into the fifteen grooves formed on the bottom, and kept securely in their places by the upper grooves," and by propolis, the author might well have added. American apiarists need not be told that such a hive would be wholly impracticable. Without bees in it, the changes of weather would make the sliding of the frames very difficult; with the bees inside, the removal of the frames would be practically impossible.

In 1851 Mr. Munn issued a second edition of his book, in the preface of which I find the following: "Having materially simplified the bar-frame hive, by forming the 'oblong bar-frames' into 'triangular frames,' and making them lift out of the top, instead of the back of the bee-box, I have republished the pamphlet." The triangular hive (Fig. 112) is described and figured, and is the same as found illustrated in Munn's "Bevan on the Honey Bee." This hive, although a possible improvement on the other, is costly, intricate, and still very impracticable. In the price-list of J. Pettitt, Dover, England, 1864, I find this hive priced at £3 3s., or about $15.00. From the figure we learn that there were some wide spaces about the frames. These would of course be filled with comb, and render the hives entirely unsuitable for common use. That this hive lacked the essential requisites to success is evident from words penned by the inventor in 1863: "The hive matters little if the pasturage is good." And it is easy to see from the complex arrangement of the frames, and the wide spaces about them, that as Mr. Munn said, referring to his hive, "When left to themselves the bees shut up the shop." Had invention stopped with Major Munn's hive, we should to-day be using the old box hive, and sighing in vain for a better. Neighbour well says (3d edition, p. 129): "Probably the reason of the invention's failure was the expensiveness of the Major's fittings, which make the hive appear more like some astronomical instrument, than a box for bees. Be this as it may, there was no such thing as a frame hive in use in England till 1860."

It would seem strange, that after going so far Major Munn should have failed to give bee-keepers a hive of value. Yet with his view that smoke injured the bees and brood (2d edition, p. 21), we can readily see, that with his hive and black bees, a man would need the skin of a rhinoceros, and nerves of brass, to do much by way of actual manipulation for practical purposes. It has been truly said that "The Huber hive can be used with far greater ease and safety, by a novice, than can Munn's."

It will be seen by reference to "Bee Culture with Movable Frames," published by Pastor George Kleine, Hanover, Germany, in 1853, p. 5, that a druggist by the name of Schmidt, in a work which he published in Freiburg, in 1851, entitled, "The New Bee Homes," describes a hive with the Huber leaves having prolonged tops which hung on rabbets, much as do our frames. These Huber leaves were close-fitting, and so not practical. Kleine regarded this as inferior to the Huber hive, in that the combs must be taken out from above. With a side opening he thinks it would be a material improvement. It is evident from Kleine's work, that he knew nothing either of Munn or his hive.

In 1847, Jacob Shaw, Jr., then of Hinckley, Ohio, published in the _Scientific American_, March 5th, 1847, p. 187, the description of a hive devised by him. A person who has seen the hive tells me that as described and first used, this hive had close-fitting frames, which rested in a double-walled tin box. By turning hot water into the chamber, the frames would be loosened. We do not wonder that, as Mr. Shaw deposed, he only made one hive, and that he could only persuade one colony of the several which he tried, to accept the situation, and that this one soon perished. He got no surplus, and wisely set the hive aside.

In 1847, the well known agricultural writer, Solon Robinson, suggested in an article published in the _Albany Cultivator_; a tin hive made up of unicomb apartments which should set close side by side, and be connected by inter-communicating holes. Of course, such a hive would only succeed in the imagination.

M. Debeauvoys published, in 1847, the 2d edition of "Guide de l'Apiculteur," at Angers, France, in which he described a movable comb hive, to meet the practical wants of French bee-keepers. This hive was not only no improvement on that of Huber, but even less easy of manipulation. The top-bar and uprights of the frames were close-fitting to the top and sides of the hive. Says M. Hamet, editor of the French bee paper, in his work, "Cours Pratique D'Apiculture," 1859 edition: "The removal of the frames is more difficult than from the Huber hive, and it has never been accepted by the practical bee-keepers of France." Mr. Chas. Dadant describes this hive, which he once made and used, in the _American Bee Journal_, vol. 7, p. 197. He says of it: "The hive worked well when new and empty; but after the bees had glued the frames, it was difficult to remove them without breaking the combs. It would have been entirely impossible to remove them at all, without separating the ends of the hive from the frames with a chisel. This hive, which had gained 2,500 proselytes in France, was very soon abandoned by all, and the disciples of Debeauvoys returned to the old-fashioned straw hive." He adds, further, that these hives were disastrous to French bee culture. Once misled by movable frames, they ever afterwards refused them even for trial. Of course Mr. S. S. Fisher, once commissioner of patents, and an expert, could see nothing in this hive, or any of the inventor's modifications of it, to invalidate the Langstroth patent. How grateful all American apiarists should be, that Mr. Langstroth's invention was of a different type.

As already stated, bars were used centuries ago in Greece. Della Rocca, in a work published in 1790, also describes bars as used by him. Schirach used slats across the top of a box with rear-opening doors, as early as 1771. In Key's work, "Ancient Bee Master's Farewell," London, 1796, p. 42, such hives are described, and beautifully illustrated, plate 1, figs. 2 and 3. Bevan, London, 1838, describes on p. 82 a similar hive, with the bars set in rabbets, which is figured on p. 83.

In 1835, Dzierzon, who has been to Germany what Langstroth has to America, commenced bee-culture. Three years later he adopted the bar hive, and although these bar hives were previously of little value to practical apiculture, in his hands they became a most valuable instrument. To remove the combs, the great German master had to cut them loose from the sides of the hives. Yet from his great skill in handling them, his studious habits, and invaluable researches, which gave to the world the knowledge of parthenogenesis among bees, his hive and system marked a new era in German apiculture.

In 1851, our own Langstroth, without any knowledge of what foreign apiarian inventors had done, save what he could find in Huber, and edition 1838 of Bevan, invented the hive now in common use among the advanced apiarists of America. It is this hive, the greatest apiarian invention ever made, that has placed American apiculture in advance of that of all other countries. What practical bee-keeper of America could say with H. Hamet, edition 1861, p. 166, that the improved hives were without value except to the amateur, and inferior for practical purposes? Our apiarists not native to our shores, like the late Adam Grimm and Mr. Chas. Dadant, always conceded that Mr. Langstroth was the inventor of this hive, and always proclaimed its usefulness. Well did the late Mr. S. Wagner, the honest, fearless, scholarly and truth-loving editor of the early volumes of the _American Bee Journal_, himself of German origin, say: "When Mr. Langstroth took up this subject, he well knew what Huber had done, and saw wherein he had failed--failing, possibly, only because he aimed at nothing more than constructing an observing hive, suitable for his purposes. Mr. Langstroth's object was other and _higher_. He aimed at making frames movable, interchangeable, and _practically_ serviceable in bee culture." And how true what follows: "_Nobody_ before Mr. Langstroth ever succeeded in devising a mode of making and using a movable frame that was of any practical value in bee culture." No man in the world, beside Mr. Langstroth, was so conversant with this whole subject as was Mr. Wagner. His extensive library and thorough knowledge made him a competent judge. Now that the invention is public property, men will cease to falsify and even perjure themselves, to rob an old man, whose words, writings, and whole life, shine with untarnished ingenuousness. And very soon all will unite with the great majority of intelligent American apiarists of to-day, in rendering to this benefactor of our art, the credit; though he has been hopelessly deprived of the pecuniary benefits of his great invention.

Mr. Langstroth, though he knew of no previous invention of frames contained in a case, when he made his invention, in 1851, does not profess to have been the first to have invented them. Every page of his book shows his transparent honesty, and desire to give all due credit to other writers and inventors. He does claim, and very justly, to have invented the first practical frame hive, the one described in his patent, applied for in January, 1851, and in all three editions of his book.

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?

NATURAL HISTORY OF THE LECANIUM TULIPIFERÆ.

The fully developed insect, like all bark lice, is in the form of a scale (Fig. 113, 1), closely applied to the limb or twig on which it works. This insect, like most of its genus, is brown, very convex above, (Fig. 113, 1), and concave beneath, (Fig. 113, 2). On the under side is a cotton-like secretion, which serves to enfold the eggs. Underneath the species in question are two transverse parallel lines of this white down, (Fig. 113, 2). One of them, probably the anterior, is nearly marginal, and is interrupted in the middle; while the other is nearly central, and in place of the interruption at the middle, it has a V-shaped projection back or away from the other line. The form of the scale is quadrangular, and not unlike that of a turtle, (Fig. 113, 1). When fully developed it is a little more than 3-16 of an inch long, and a little more than ⅔ as wide.

Here at Lansing, the small, yellow, oval eggs appear late in August. In Tennessee they would be found under the scales in their cotton wrappings many days earlier. The eggs are 1-40 of an inch long, and 1-65 of an inch wide. These eggs, which are very numerous, hatch in the locality of their development, and the young or larval lice, quite in contrast with their dried, inert, motionless parents, are spry and active. They are oval, (Figs. 113, 3 and 4), yellow; and 1-23 of an inch long, and 1-40 of an inch wide. The eyes, antenna (Fig. 113, 5), and legs, (Fig. 113, 6), are plainly visible when magnified 30 or 40 diameters. The 9-jointed abdomen is deeply emarginate, or cut into posteriorly, (Fig. 113, 3), and on each side of this slit is a projecting stylet or hair, (Figs. 113, 3 and 4), while from between the eyes, on the under side of the head, extends the long recurved beak, (Fig. 113, 4). The larvæ soon leave the scales, crawl about the tree, and finally fasten by inserting their long slender beaks, when they so pump up the sap that they grow with surprising rapidity. In a few weeks their legs and antennæ seem to disappear as they become relatively so small, and the scale-like form is assumed. In the following summer the scale is full-formed and the eggs are developed. Soon the scale, which is but the carcass of the once active louse, drops from the tree, and the work of destruction is left to the young lice, a responsibility which they seem quite ready to assume.

In my observations I have detected no males. Judging from others of the bark-lice, these must possess wings, and will never assume the scale form, though Prof. P. K Uhler writes me that the males of some bark lice are apterous.

REMEDIES.

If valued shade or honey trees are attacked by these insatiate destroyers, they could probably be saved by discreet pruning--cutting off the affected branches before serious injury was done, or by syringing the trees with a solution of whale oil, soap--or even common soft soap would do--just as the young lice are leaving the scales. It would be still better to have the solution hot. Whitman's Fountain Pump is admirable for making such applications.

Fig. 1 is slightly magnified; the others are largely magnified.

* * * * *

MOTHERWORT AS A HONEY PLANT.

(_Leonurus cardiaca L._)

Perhaps none of our common herbs promises better, as a honey plant, than the one in question. It is a very hardy perennial, and once introduced in waste places, it is sure to hold its own, until it becomes desirable to extirpate it, when, at man's bidding, it quickly lets go its hold, so that it is not a dangerous plant to introduce. The blossoms appear at this place about June 25th, and persist for a full month, and during the entire time are crowded with bees, whatever may be the character of the weather, whether wet or dry, warm or cool, whether the plant is in the midst of honey plants or isolated. We are thus assured that the plant is constantly secreting nectar, and is also a favorite with bees. Rape, mustards and borage seem indifferent to the weather, but are not favorites with the bees. Motherwort, then, has three admirable qualities: It is long in bloom, the flowers afford fine honey at all times, and it is a favorite with the bees. If it could be made to bloom about three weeks later, coming in just after basswood, it would have nearly all the desired qualities. I think that we might bring this about by mowing the plants in May. I am led to this opinion from the fact that some plants which we set back by transplanting in May, are still in bloom this August 10th, and are now alive with, bees, dividing their attention with the beautiful cleome, which, is now in full bloom, and fairly noisy with bees.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT.

The stalk is square (Fig. 114), branching, and when cultivated, attains a height of some four feet; though, as it grows in waste places, it is seldom more than three feet. The branches, and also the leaves, are opposite (Figs. 114 and 115), and in the axiles of the latter are whorls of blossoms (Figs. 115 and 116), which succeed each other from below to the top of the branching stems. The corolla is like that of all the mints, while the calyx has five teeth, which are sharp and spine-like in the nutlets as they appear at the base of the leaves (Fig. 115). As they near the top, the whorls of blossoms and succeeding seeds are successively nearer together, and finally become very crowded at the apex (Fig. 116). The leaves are long and palmately lobed (Fig. 115). The small blossom is purple.

THE SOUR-WOOD TREE.

The sorrel tree (_Oxydendrum arboreum_) (Fig. 117), so called because of the acidity of the leaves, is a native of the South, but has been grown even as far north as New York. It often attains no mean dimensions in its native home along the Alleghanies, often reaching upward more than fifty feet, and acquiring a diameter of twelve or fifteen inches.

The flowers are arranged in racemes, are more drooping than represented in the figure, are white, and with the beautiful foliage make an ornamental tree of high rank. The bark is rough, and the wood so soft as to be worthless, either as fuel or for use in the arts. As a honey tree, it is very highly esteemed; in fact, it is the linden of the South.

THE JAPAN MEDLAR.

I have received from J. M. Putnam, of New Orleans, La., flowers of the _Mespilus Japonica_, or Japan plum. He states that it bears a most delicious fruit, blooms from August till January, unless cut off by a severe frost, and is proof against ordinary frosts. He states that it furnishes abundance of delicious honey, and that, too, when his bees were gathering from no other source.

The _Mespilus Germanica_ grows in England, and is much praised for its fruit. From Mr. Putnam's account, the _M. Japonica_ is unprecedented in its length of bloom. We think two months a long time. We pay high tribute to mignonette, cleome and borage, when we tell of four months of bloom; but this is mild praise when compared with this Japan plum, which flowers from August first till January.

The flowers are in a dense panicle, and were still fragrant after their long journey. The leaf is lanceolate, and very thick, some like the wax plant. I should say it was an evergreen. The apiarists of the South are to be congratulated on this valuable acquisition to their bee forage. I hope it will thrive North as well as South.

* * * * *

THE STINGING-BUG.--_Phymata Erosa_, Fabr.

This insect is very widely distributed throughout the United States. I have received it from Maryland to Missouri on the South, and from Michigan to Minnesota on the North. The insect will lie concealed among the flowers, and upon occasion will grasp a bee, hold it off at arm's length, and suck out its blood and life.

This is a Hemipteran, or true bug, and belongs to the family _Phymatidæ Uhr_. It is the _Phymata Erosa_, Fabr., the specific name erosa referring to its jagged appearance. It is also called the "stinging bug," in reference to its habit of repelling intrusion by a painful thrust with its sharp, strong; beak.

The "stinging bug" (Fig. 118) is somewhat jagged in appearance, about three-eighths of an inch long, and generally of a yellow color; though this latter seems quite variable. Frequently there is a distinct greenish hue. Beneath the abdomen, and on the back of the head, thorax and abdomen, it is more or less specked with brown; while across the dorsal aspect of the broadened abdomen is a marked stripe of brown (Fig. 119 _d, d_). Sometimes this stripe is almost wanting, sometimes a mere patch, while rarely the whole abdomen, is very slightly marked, and as often we find it almost wholly brown above and below. The legs (Fig. 119, 6), beak and antennæ (Fig. 119, _a_) are greenish yellow. The beak (Fig. 120) has three joints (Fig. 120, _a, b, c_) and a sharp point (Fig. 120, _d_).

This beak is not only the great weapon of offense, but also the organ through which the food is sucked. By the use of this, the insect has gained the soubriquet of stinging bug. This compact jointed beak is peculiar to all true bugs, and by observing it alone, we are able to distinguish all the very varied forms of this group. The antenna (Fig. 121) is; four-jointed. The first joint (Fig. 121, _a_) is short, the second and third (Fig. 121, _b_ and _c_) are long and slim, while the terminal one (Fig. 121, _d_) is much enlarged. This enlarged joint is one of the characteristics of the genus Phymata, as described by Latreille. But the most curious structural peculiarity of this insect, and the chief character of the genus Phymata, is the enlarged anterior legs (Figs. 122, 123 and 124). These, were they only to aid in locomotion, would seem like awkward, clumsy organs, but when we learn that they are used to grasp and hold their prey, then we can but appreciate and admire their modified form. The femur (Fig. 122, _b_) and the tarsus (Fig. 122, _a_) are toothed, while the latter is greatly enlarged. From the interior lower aspect of the femur (Fig. 123) is the small tibia, while on the lower edge of the tarsus (Fig. 123, d) is a cavity in which rests the single claw. The other four legs (Fig. 125) are much as usual.

This insect, as already intimated, is very predaceous, lying in wait, often almost concealed, among flowers, ready to capture and destroy unwary plant-lice, caterpillars, beetles, butterflies, moths, and even bees and wasps. We have already noticed how well prepared it is for this work by its jaw-like anterior legs, and its sharp, strong, sword-like beak.

It is often caught on the golden rod. This plant, from its very color, tends to conceal the hug, and from the very character of the plant--being attractive as a honey plant to bees--the slow bug is enabled to catch the spry and active honey-bee.

As Prof. Uhler well says of the "stinging-bug": "It is very useful in destroying caterpillars and other vegetable-feeding insects, but is not very discriminating in its tastes, and would as soon seize the useful honey-bee as the pernicious saw-fly." And he might have added that it is equally indifferent to the virtues of our friendly insects like the parasitic and predaceous species.

We note, then, that this bug is not wholly evil, and as its destruction would be well-nigh impossible, for it is as widely scattered as are the flowers in which it lurks, we may well rest its case, at least until its destructiveness becomes more serious than at present.

* * * * *

THE SOUTHERN BEE-KILLERS.

_Mallophora orcina and Mallophora bomboides._

I have received from several of our enterprising bee-keepers of the South--Tennessee, Georgia and Florida--the above insects, with the information that they dart forth from some convenient perch, and with swift and sure aim, grasp a bee, bear it to some bush, when they leisurely suck out all but the mere crust, and cast away the remains. The bee which is thus victimized, is readily known by the small hole in the back, through which the juices were pumped out.

The insects plainly belong to the family Asilidæ, the same that includes the Missouri bee-killer, _Asilus Missouriensis_, the Nebraska bee-killer, _Promachus bastardi_, and other predatory insects, several of which, I regret to say, have the same evil habit of killing and devouring our friends of the hive.

The characters of this family, as given by Loew, one of the greatest authorities on Diptera, or two-winged flies, are prolonged basal cells of the wings, third longitudinal vein bifurcate, third joint of antenna simple, under lip forming a horny sheath, empodium, a projection below and beneath the claws (Fig. 131, _c_), a horny bristle.

The insects in question belong to Loew's third group, Asilina, as the antennæ end in a bristle (Fig. 128), while the second longitudinal vein of the wing (Fig. 129, _b_) runs into the first (Fig. 129, _a_).

The genus is _Mallophora_. The venation of the wings much resembles that of the genus _Promachus_, the same that contains the Nebraska bee-killer, though the form of these insects is very different. The Nebraska bee-killer is long and slim like the _Asilus Missouriensis_ (see Fig. 108), while the one in question is much like the neuter bumble-bee in form.

In _Mallophora_ and _Promachus_, the venation is as represented in Fig. 129, where, as will be seen, the second vein (Fig. 129, _b_) forks, while in the genus Asilus (Fig. 130) the third vein is forked, though in all three genera the third joint of the antennæ (Fig. 128) ends in a prolonged bristle.

One of the most common of these pests, which I am informed by Dr. Hagen, is _Mallophora orcina_, Wied, (Fig. 126) is one inch long, and expands one and three-fourths inches (Fig. 127). The head (Fig. 128) is broad, the eyes black and prominent, the antennæ three-jointed, the last joint terminating in a bristle, while the beak is very large, strong, and like the eyes and antennæ, coal black. This is mostly concealed by the light yellow hairs, which are crowded thick about the mouth and between the eyes.

The thorax is prominent and thickly set with light yellow hairs. The abdomen is narrow, tapering, and covered with yellow hairs except the tip, which is black. Beneath, the insect is clear black, though there are scattering hairs of a grayish yellow color on the black legs. The pulvilli, or feet pads (Fig. 131, _b_) are two in number, bright yellow in color, surmounted by strong black claws (Fig. 131, _a_), while below and between is the sharp spine (Fig, 131, _c_), technically known as the empodium.

I cannot give the distinctions which mark the sexes, nor can I throw any light upon the larval condition of the insect.

The habits of the flies are interesting, if not to our liking. Their flight is like the wind, and perched near the hive, they rush upon the unwary bee returning to the hive with its full load of nectar, and grasping it with their hard strong legs, they bear it to some perch near by, when they pierce the crust, suck out the juices, and drop the carcass, and are then ready to repeat the operation. A hole in the bee shows the cause of its sudden taking off. The eviscerated bee is not always killed at once by this rude onslaught, but often can crawl some distance away from where it falls, before it expires.

Another insect nearly as common is the _Mallophora bomboides_, Wied. This fly might be called a larger edition of the one just described, as in form, habits and appearance, it closely resembles the other. It belongs to the same genus, possessing all the generic characters already pointed out. It is very difficult to capture them, as they are so quick and active.

This fly is one and five-sixteenths inches long, and expands two and a half inches. The head and thorax are much as in the other species. The wings are very long and strong, and, as in the other species, are of a smoky brown color. The abdomen is short, pointed, concave from side to side on the tinder surface, while the grayish yellow hairs are abundant on the legs and whole under portion of the body. The color is a lighter yellow than in the other species. These insects are powerfully built, and if they become numerous, must prove a formidable enemy to the bees.

Another insect very common and destructive in Georgia, though it closely resembles the two just described, is of a different genus. It is the _Laphria thoracica_ of Fabricius. In this genus the third vein is forked, and the third joint of the antenna is without the bristle, though it is elongated and tapering. The insect is black, with yellow hair covering the upper surface of the thorax. The abdomen is wholly black both above and below, though the legs have yellow hairs on the femurs and tibia. This insect belongs to the same family as the others, and has the same habits. It is found North as well as South.

HONEY-COMB CORAL.

A very common fossil found in many parts of the Eastern and Northern United States, is, from its appearance, often called petrified honey-comb. We have many such specimens in our museum. In some cases the cells are hardly larger than a pin-head; in others a quarter of an inch in diameter.

These (Fig. 132) are not fossil honey-comb as many are led to believe, though the resemblance is so striking that no wonder that the public generally are deceived. These specimens are fossil coral, which the paleontologist places in the genus Favosites; favosus being a common species in our State. They are very abundant in the lime rock in northern Michigan, and are very properly denominated honey-stone coral. The animals of which these were once the skeletons, so to speak, are not insects at all, though often called so by men of considerable information. It would be no greater blunder to call an oyster or a clam an insect.

The species of the genus Favosites first appeared in the Upper Silurian rocks, culminated in the Devonian, and disappeared in the early Carboniferous. No insects appeared till the Devonian age, and no Hymenoptera--bees, wasps, etc.--till after the Carboniferous. So the old-time Favosites reared its limestone columns and helped to build islands and continents untold ages--millions upon millions of years--before any flower bloomed, or any bee sipped the precious nectar. In some specimens of this honey-stone coral (Fig. 133), there are to be seen banks of cells, much resembling the paper cells of some of our wasps. This might be called wasp-stone coral, except that both styles were wrought by the self-same animals.

GENERAL INDEX.

PAGE

A B C of Bee Culture 22
Abdomen of Insects 48
Air Tubes 28
Albino Bees 43
Alighting-Board 127
separate from bottom-board 127
Alsike Clover--see clover 228
American Bee Journal 19
Amateurs 11
Anatomy and Physiology 48
of bees 71
of insects 48
internal 56
Antenna 51
Ants 271
remedies for 271
function 51
Apiary,
where to locate 120
grounds 152
house--see house apiary 255
position of 152
Apiary Grounds 152
arrangement of 152
improvement of 153
screens for 152
shade for 153
Apiculture,
adaptation to women 15
as an avocation 15
fascination of 12
for amateurs 11, 15
for specialists 11
inducements to 12
adaptation to women 15
excellence for amateurs 15
improves the mind 17
recreation 12
yields delicious food 17
profits of 13
requisites to 18
conventions 19
enthusiasm 24
experience 18
mental effort 18
persistence 24
prompt attention 23
publications 19
study and thought 18
visits to other apiarists 18
work 11
unsuited to whom 12
Apidæ Family 34
animals of 35
instincts of 34
Apis Genus 38
animals of 40
characters of 38
Apis Mellifica 41
Aristotle 44
Articulate Branch 27
animals of 27
Artificial Colonies 177
advantages of 177
how made 177
one from one 177
one from several 178
Axioms 277

Barberry 225
figure 226
Barnes' Saw 151
Basswood 237
figure of 237
Bees,
as fertilizers 220
burying 254
how to procure 118
injuring fruit 220
kind to purchase 119
kinds in each colony 71
place in the animal kingdom 27
quieted 197
by jarring 198
by smoking 198
value of 120
when to purchase 119
who may keep 11
why keep 12
Bee-Bread--see pollen 111
Bee Dress for Ladies 197
Bee Enemies 262
ants 271
bee-hawk 269
bee-killer 267
bee-louse 268
bee-moth 262
king-bird 272
mice 272
spiders 271
tachina fly 270
toads 272
wasps 271
Bee Gloves 197
Bee Glue--see propolis 112
Bee Hawk 269
remedy for 270
Bee-Keepers' Axioms 277
Bee-Keepers' Magazine 21
Bee-Killer 267
figure of 268
remedies for 268
Bee-Louse 268
figure of 268
remedy for 269
Bee-Moth 262
cocoons of 264
figure of 264
eggs of 263
figure of 264, 265
larva of 263
figure of 264
remedies 266
silk tube of 263
figure of 262, 263
Bee Plants--see plants 220
necessary to success 218
list of 221
Bee Veil 196
figure of 196
Bees Angered 195, 201
by quick movements 195, 201
by sweat 201
Bees Subdued 197
Beeswax 106
from what 106
how separated 211
Beggar-Ticks 244
Bergamot 238
Bevan on the Honey-Bee 22
Bevel-Gauge 126
figure of 126
Bevel Joints 126
Bibliography 44, 113
Bingham Hive 140
figure of 140
Bingham Smoker 199
figure of 199
Black Bees--see German bees 41
Blackberries 236
Blood of Insects 57
Body of Insects 48
parts of 48
Bombus 35
Boneset 288
figure of 241
Bonnet 45
Books for the Apiarist 21
A B C of Bee Culture 22
Bevan's Honey-Bee 22, 113
foreign 22
Gray's Botany 244
Huber 113
Hunter's Manual 23
King's Text-Book 52
Langstroth on the Honey-Bee 21
Neighbour's Apiary 23, 118
Quinby's Mysteries 22
Books for the Entomologist 47, 113
Duncan's Transformations of Insects 113
Kirby & Spence 47
Packard 47, 113
Westwood 47
Reports 47
Fitch 47
Harris 47
Riley 47
Borage 231
figure of 230
Bottom-board 127
figure of 128
immovable 129
Box Hives 122
Boxes 142
Barker & Dicer 143
crate for 144
figure of 142, 143
Harbison 142
figure of 143
Isham 142
figure of 143
position of 144
Russell 142
special support for 142
use 142
Box Honey 142
when to secure 215
where to keep 216
Branch 27
articulata 27
of the honey-bee 27
Breathing of Insects 59
Breathing-mouths 59
Buckwheat 242
figure of 242
Button-ball 238
figure of 240

Cages
for introducing queen 184
for shipping queen 186
figure of 187
Calendar 274
Carpenter Bees 36
Catnip 232, 240
Chaff Hives 251
Chrysalids 69
Circulatory System 57
Class 28
insecta 28
of the honey-bee 28
Cleome--see Rocky M't'n bee plant 238
Clover 228
Alsike 228
figure of 229
sweet 228
figure of 230
white 228
figure of 228
Clustering Outside the Hive 153
cause of 153
how prevented 153
adding room 176
extracting 188
shading 153
Cocoons 69
of bees 98
College Course 118
Colonies,
always strong 119
how moved 187
Columella 44
Comb 108
cells in 110
worker 110
drone 110
figure of 109
for guide 208
how fastened 157, 158
how made 108, 110
transparency of 110
use of 110
what determines kind 110
Comb Foundation 203
American 204
figure of 203
history of 203
how cut 207
how fastened 209
how made 206
use of 207
Comb Foundation Machine 205
figure of 205
inventor of 205
Comb Honey 215
apparatus to secure 141
care of 216
in boxes 142
in frames 144
in what form 144, 215
marketing 215
when to secure 215
Conventions 19
Corn 235
Cotton 236
figure of 236
Cover for Frames 129
Cover for Hives 129
figure of 130, 131
Crates,
section 149
market 216
Cyprian Bee 43

De Geer 45
Digestive Organs 60
Diseases 259
dysentery 247, 259
foul brood 259
Dissection 50, 65
Dissecting Instruments 51, 65
lenses 51, 65
needle points 51
dividers--see separators 146
Dividing Colonies--see artificial
colonies 171, 177
Division-board 137
figure of 137
use of 138
Dollar Queens 186
Dorsata Bee 40
Dress for Ladies 197
Drones 86
development of 87
eggs of 87
eyes of 86
function of 83
influence of, on drone progeny 89
jaws of 86
figure of 92
leg of 86
figure of 87
longevity of 88
number of 86
tongue of 86
when in hive 86, 88
why so numerous 89
Dysentery 247, 259

Egg 67
of insects 67
of bee 96
Egyptian Bee 43
Empty Cells 188
importance of 188
how to secure 188
Entrance to Hive 128
Epicranium 48
Extractor,
of honey 188
figure of 189
Everett's 190
history of 188
how to use 194
knives for 191
figure of 191
rack for 189
figure of 190
use of 191
when to use 192
wire comb baskets for 189
figure of 189
of wax 212
figure of 213
Extracted Honey 214
market for 214
Extracting Honey 191
how done 194
why done 191
when done 192
Eyes of Insects 53
compound 54
simple 54

Fabricius 46
Family 34
apidæ 34
of the honey-bee 34
Feeder 160
figure of 160, 161
Feeding 159
amount to feed 159
use of 159
what to feed 160
honey 160
sugar 160
flour 163
Female Organs 64
Fertile Workers 77
Fertilization of Flowers by Bees 220
Figwort 238
figure of 238
Fitch's Report 47
Foot-power Saw 151
Foul Brood 259
cause 260
cure for 200
symptoms of 259
Foundation 203
figure of 203
history of 203
use of 203, 207
how cut 207
how fastened 209
how made 206
Frames 132
arrangement for surplus 147
block for making 134
figure of 135
cover for 136
figure of 133, 134
form of 132
Gallup 133
gauge for construction 135
figure of 135
inventor of 123
Langstroth 132
number of 132
section 148
small--see sections 144
space about 136
space between 136
Fruit trees 225

Gallup Frame 133
Geoffroy 45
Genus,
apis 38
of the honey-bee 38
German or Black Bee 31
Gleanings in Bee Culture 20
Gloves 197
Golden-rod 242
figure of 243
Grapes Injured by Bees 220
Grape Vines for Shade 153
Gunther 12

Handling Bees 195
Harris' Injurious Insects 47
Harvey 44
Head of Insects 48
organs of 43
Heart of Insects 57
Hexapods--see Insects 30
Hives 122
alighting-board of 127
Bingham 140
figure of 140
bottom-board of 127
figure of 128
box not good 122
chaff 251
cover of 129
division-board for 137
entrance to 128
figure of 124, 130, 155
frames for 132
Huber 138
joints of 126
square 126
figure of 125
bevel 126
figure of 130
Langstroth 123
figure of 124
lumber for 124
movable comb 123
movable frame 122
near the ground 128
nucleus 165
position of 154
figure of 115
Quinby 139
figure of 139
rabbet of 125
size of 124
Honey 104
collected, not secreted 104
defined 104
extracted 193
for food 17
granulated, how dissolved 193
how collected 105
how deposited 105
how transported 105
marketing of 213
natural use of 106
source of 105
bark lice 105, 218
honey-dew 105, 219
plants 105, 210
plant lice 105, 218
other sources 105, 219
Honey-Comb--see comb 108
Honey Extractor--see extractor 188
figure of 189
importance of 188
requisites of 189
use of 191
when to use 192
Honey Knives 191
figure of 191
Honey Plants--see plants 218
for April 223
for May 225
for July 237
for June 228
for August 242
importance of 218
list of 221
House Apiary 255
advantages of 256
are they desirable? 256
objections to 257
Huber 71
Huber Hive 138
kinds of 133
Hunter's Manual 23
Hymenopterous Insects 31
the highest 32
parasitic 32

Imago 70
Insecta 28
animals of 30
class 28
Insects, or Hexapods 30
abdomen of 30
head of 30
imago of 30
larva of 30
pupa of 30
thorax of 30
transformations of 66
transformations, complete 66
transformations, incomplete 70
Introduction of Cell 185
figure of 167
Introduction of Queen 183
Intestines 61
Italian Bees 41, 180
description of 42, 181
figure of Frontispiece
history of 41
superiority of 181

Jaws 50
figure of 92
Judas Tree 225
figure of 224

King Bird 27?
King's Text-Book 22
Kirby & Spence's Entomology 47, 113

Labium 48
Labrum 48
Ladies' Bee Dress 197
Langstroth, Rev. L. L. 123
Langstroth Frame 132
figure of 124
Langstroth Hive 123
figure of 124
Langstroth on the Honey-Bee 21
Larva 68
Latreille 45
Leaf-Cutting Bee 36
Legs of Insects 90
Linnæus 45
Ligula 49
figure of 91
Location of Apiary 120
Locust Trees 236
Lyonnet 46

Male Organs 62
figure of 63
Mandibles 50
figure of 92
Maple 224, 225
figure of 222
Market--for honey 213
crate for 216
figures of 216, 217
for comb 215
for extracted 214
how to stimulate 213
rules for 215
Mason Bees 36, 37
Maxillæ 50
Megachile 36
Melipona 35
Mice 272
remedy for 272
Mignonette 231
figure of 231
Milk-Weed 232
pollen masses of 233
figure of 233
Mimicry 31
Mouth Parts 48
figure of 49
variation of 50
Movable-Comb Hives 123
two types 123
Moving Colonies 187
Multiplying Colonies 171
Muscles of Insects 56
Mustard 233
figure of 233

Natural History of the Honey-Bee 27
Natural Method of Increase 171
Natural Swarms 171
means to save 173
implements required 173
not desirable 171
second swarms prevented 175
Neighbour, The Apiary 23
Nerves of Insects 57
figure of 58
Neuters 90
cocoon of 98
development of 96
eggs of 96
eyes of 92
figure of 90
function of 99
old workers 99
young workers 99
honey stomach of 92
figure of 60
jaws of 92
figure of 92
larva of 97
figure of 97
longevity of 99
number of 90
pollen baskets of 93
figure of 93
pupa of 98
figure of 97
size of 90
sting of 95
figure of 95
tarsi of 93
figure of 93, 94
tibia of 93
tongue of 92
figure of 91
wings of 92
figure of 38
Nymphs 69

Order 30
of insects 30
of the honey-bee 30
Osmia 37
Ovaries 64
figure of 64

Packard's Entomology 47
Palpi 49
Papers 19
American Bee Journal 19
Bee-Keepers' Magazine 21
Gleanings in Bee Culture 20
Paraglossæ 49
Parasitic Insects 32
Parasitic Bees 37
Parthenogenesis 80
in bees 80
in other insects 81
Plants 220
asters 243
figure of 243
April 223
August 242
barberry 225
figure of 226
basswood 237
figure of 237
beggar-ticks 244
bergamot 238
blackberry 236
boneset 238
figure of 241
buckwheat 243
figure of 243
button-ball 238
figure of 240
catnip 232, 240
clover 228
Alsike 228
figure of 229
sweet 228
figure of 230
white 228
figure of 228
coffee berry 226
corn 235
cotton 236
figure of 236
figwort 238
figure of 238
fruit trees 225
golden-rod 242
figure of 243
Judas tree 225
figure of 224
July 237
June 228
list of 221
locust 236
maples 221, 225
figure of 222
milk-weed 232
pollen-masses 232
figure of 233
mints 232
figure of 232
mignonette 231
figure of 231
mustard 233
figure of 233
okra 232
figure of 231
poplar 225
rape 234
figure of 234
Rocky Mountain bee 238
figure of 239
sage 232
white 226
figure of 227
sour-wood 240
Spanish needles 244
St. John's wort 240
sumac 226
teasel 235
figure of 236
tick-seed 244
tulip tree 234
figure of 235
willow 224
figure of 223
wistaria 225
American 225
figure of 225
Chinese 225
figure of 226
Pliny 44
Poison from Sting 12
innoculation of 12
Poison Sack 95
Pollen 111
function of 112
how carried 111
nature of 111
source of 111
where deposited 112
Preparation for Apiculture 117
college course 118
plan 118
read 117
visit 117
Products of Bees 104
comb 108
figure of 109
honey 104
pollen or bee-bread 111
propolis or bee-glue 112
wax 106
Products of Insects 104
Propolis or Bee-Glue 112
function of 113
nature of 112
source of 112
Publications 19
American Bee Journal 19
Bee-Keepers' Magazine 21
Gleanings in Bee Culture 20
Pupa 68
figure of 69

Queen 71
brood from eggs 78, 164
cages 184
cell 75
figure of 109, 167
introduction of 167
figure of 167
when started 164
where built 164
figure of 109
clipping wing of 168
how done 169
not injurious 168
why done 169
cocoon of 77
development of 75
eggs of 80, 81
how impregnated 81
Wagner's theory 81
fecundity of 83, 84
figure of 72
food of larvæ 76
function of 83
how procured 185
importance of 163
impregnation of 78
only on the wing 79
introduction of 183
laying of 82
longevity of 83
must have empty cells 188
never to be wanting 163, 176
never to be poor 186
no sovereign 85
ovaries of 72
figure of 64
oviduct of 64
piping of 102
rearing of 78, 163, 186
sex of 71
shipping 186
size of 72
spermatheca of 72
sterility of 83
sting of 71
tongue of 73
figure of 73
wings of 73
Queen Cells 75
figure of 109, 167
how secured 164
introduction of 167
figure of 167
Queen Rearing 163, 186
Queen Shipping 186
cage for 186
figure of 187
Queen White Ant 84
fecundity of 84
Quilt 136
Quinby, M. 138
Quinby Hive 139
figure of 139
Quinby's Mysteries of Bee-keeping 22
Quinby Smoker 198
figure of 199

Rabbets for Hive 125
of tin 125
Races of the Honey-Bee 41
Egyptian 43
German or black 41
Italian or Ligurian 41
history of 41
characters of 42
superiority of 181
other 43
Ray 44
Réaumur 45
Respiration 59
Riley's Reports 47
Robbing 258
how checked 258
how prevented 259
when to fear 258
Rocky Mountain Bee Plant 238
figure of 239
Royal Jelly 76
Russell Hive 141