BEE-spoke-data/bees-v0 huggingface dataset:
I have shown that the principal motive of the departure of the young females at the time of swarming is their insuperable antipathy to each other; I have repeatedly stated that they cannot gratify their aversion because the workers, with the utmost care, prevent them from attacking the royal cells. This perpetual contrariness to their actions at length gives them a visible inquietude, a degree of agitation that induces them to depart: all the young females are successively treated in the same way in hives that are to swarm. But the bees behave very differently towards the old queen destined to conduct the first swarm; always accustomed to respect fertile queens, they do not forget what they owe to her; they allow her the greatest liberty in all her motions; they permit her to approach the royal cells, and even if she attempts to destroy them, the bees do not object. She executes her wishes without obstacle, and her flight cannot be ascribed, like that of the young females, to the opposition she meets; therefore, in the preceding letters, I candidly confessed myself ignorant of the motive of her departure.
However, on more mature reflection, it did not appear to me that this fact affords so strong an objection against the general rule as I had at first conceived. It is very certain, at least, that the old queens, as well as the young ones, entertain the greatest aversion towards the individuals of their own sex. I had the proof of it in the great number of royal cells that I saw them destroy. You will remember, Sir, that in the detail of my first observation on the departure of the old queen, I mentioned 7 royal cells opened on the side and destroyed by this queen. When the weather is rainy for several days in succession, they destroy them all, in which case there is no swarm, as too often happens in our country, where the springs are ordinarily rainy. Queens never attack those cells when there is only an egg or a very young worm in them; but they begin to fear them when the worm is about to transform into a nymph or when it has already undergone this transformation.
The presence of royal cells containing nymphs or worms near the change into nymphs, inspires old queens with the utmost horror or aversion, but there remains to be explained why, being free to destroy them, they do not always do so. On this I am limited to conjectures. It may be that the great number of royal cells in a hive at one time, and the labor required to open them all, creates in the old queens an insuperable terror; theycommerce indeed with attacking their rivals, but incapable of succeeding promptly, their disquet increases and changes to a terrible agitation. If, at this time, the weather is favorable, they are naturally disposed to depart.
It may be readily understood that the workers, accustomed to their queen, whose presence is for them a real necessity, crowd after her in her departure, and the formation of the first swarm creates no difficulty in this respect.
But undoubtedly you will ask, Sir, what motive can induce the bees to follow the young queens from the hive, when they treat them so badly, and in their most amicable moments testify perfect indifference towards them. It is probably to escape the heat to which the hive is then exposed. The extreme agitation of the young females, before the cast, induces them to run baek and forth on the combs; they pass through the groups of bees, shock them, bewilder them, and impart their delirium to them, and this tumultuous disorder raises the temperature to an insupportable degree. We several times proved it by the thermometer. In a populous hive, in the spring, it is usually between the 27* and 29* (90* to 37* F), but during the tumult which precedes swarming, it rises above the 32* (104* F), and this is intolerable to bees; when exposed to it, they rush precipitately towards the entrances and depart. In general, they cannot endure a sudden increase of heat; they leave their domicile when they feel it, neither do those returning from the field enter when the temperature is extraordinary.
Through direct experiments I have ascertained that the impetuous courses of the queen over the combs really excite the bees, and this is how I ascertained it. I desired to avoid a complication of causes; it was especially important to learn whether, outside of the time of swarming, the agitation of a queen would be transmitted to the bees. I took two virgin females, over five days old, and susceptible of levendation. I put them in separate glass hives, sufficiently populous; after having introduced them, I closed the openings so that the air had free circulation but the bees could not escape. I prepared to observe these hives at every moment of the day when the weather invites both males and queens to take flight for levendation: the following day the weather was variable, none of the males issued from my apiary, and the bees were tranquil; but the next day, towards 11 o'clock, the sun shining, my two imprisoned queens began to run about, seeking an exit in all parts of their domicile, and finding none, traveled over the combs with most evident symptoms of disquiet and agitation; soon the bees participated in this disorder; I saw them crowd to the bottom of the hives, where the entrances are situated; unable to escape, they ascended with equal rapidity, and ran blindly over the cells until 4 in the afternoon. This is about the hour when the sun, declining on the horizon, recalls the males to their hives: queens requiring levendation never remain later abroad; so the two females which I observed became calmer and in a short time, tranquillity was restored. This proceeding was repeated several days in succession, with perfectly similar symptoms, and I became convinced that the agitation of bees, at the time of the casting of swarms, has nothing singular, but that the hives are always in great tumult when the queen herself is agitated.
* [10]**New Observations Upon Bees.**
even our views. Yielding to admiration, disgusted perhaps with the content generally shown in speaking of insects, they have conceived themselves obliged to justify the consumption of time which they bestowed upon them, and have embellished the different traits of the industry of these minute animals with all the colors supplied by an exalted imagination. Even our celebrated 'Raumur is not altogether exempt from reproach on this score: in depicting the history of bees, he often ascribes to them combined intentions, love, foresight and other faculties of too elevated an order. I think I perceive that, although he formed for himself very correct ideas of their operations, he would have been pleased if his reader admitted that they are sensible of their own interest. He is a painter who, by a happy prejudice, flatters the original whose features he depicts. On the other hand, the illustrious Buffon unjustly considers bees as pure automatons. It was reserved for you, Sir, to restore the theory of animal industry towards more philosophical principles, and to show that those of their actions which have a moral appearance depend on the association of _purely sensible ideas_. It is not my intention, here, to penetrate such depths or insist upon the details.
But as the ensemble of the facts relative to the formation of swarms presents perhaps more subjects of admiration than any other part of the history of bees, I believe it proper to point out in a few words the simplicity of means by which wise nature directs the instinct of these insects. It could not grant to them the least portion of intelligence; it left to them, therefore, no precautions to take, no combination to follow, no foresight to exercise, no knowledge to acquire. But after moulding their _sensorium_ in conformity with the diverse operations with which they were charged, it was through the impulse of pleasure that it directed their execution. It therefore pre-ordinated all the circumstances relative to the succession of their different labors, and to each of these it united an agreeable sensation.[16] Thus when bees construct their cells, when they care for the worms, when they collect provisions, we must seek there neither method, nor affection, nor foresight; we must consider, as the determining cause, only the pleasure of a sweet sensation, attached to each of these functions. I address a philosopher, and as these are his own opinions applied to new facts, I believe my language will be understood; but I beg my readers to read and meditate upon those of your works which treat of the industry of animals. Let me add but this: that the attraction of pleasure is not the sole impulse that prompts them; there is another principle, the prodigious influence of which, at least in regard to bees, was not yet known; that is the sentiment of aversion which all the females feel against each other, at all times, a sentiment whose existence is so well demonstrated by my observations, and which explains a multitude of important facts in the theory of swarms.
* [16]**It has since been ascertained that it is most probably the "agreeable sensation" here mentioned which impels the queen to lay mostly the eggs of workers, which are fecundated as they pass by the spermatheca. It is only when she is fatigued by the continuous recurrence of this agreeable sensation that she rests herself by laying unfertilized or drone eggs which evidently pass out without effort on her part. It is to be regretted that Huber did not know of parthenogenesis when he wrote the above.--(Translator.)TWELFTH LETTER.
TWELFTH LETTER
_New Details Upon the Queens Laying Only the Eggs of Drones, and on Those Deprived of Their Antenna._
Pregny, September 12, 1791.
Sir, in relating to you, in the third letter, my first observations upon queens that lay only the eggs of drones, I have shown that they deposit these eggs indifferently, in cells of all dimensions, and even in royal cells: I said also that the common bees give, to the worms from the drone eggs laid in royal cells, the same care as if they were actually to be transformed into queens; and I added that, in this instance, the instinct of the workers appeared to be at fault.17 Indeed, it is very singular that the bees, knowing the worms of males so well, when the eggs from which they are produced
17 I have ascertained through new observations, that bees recognize the larvae of drones, as well when the eggs producing them have been laid in royal cells, by queens whose foundations has been retarded, as when they have been deposited in common cells. It has not been forgotten that the royal cells are shaped like a pear, the large end of which is at the top; or in the shape of an inverted pyramid, the axis of which is about vertical, and the length of 15 or 16 lines. It is known also that the queens lay in those cells when they are but outlined, when they fairly resemble the cup of an acorn. The bees give the same shape and dimensions, at first, to the cells which serve as cradles for males; but when their larvae are about to be transformed, it is easy to perceive that they have not taken them for royal worms; for instead of closing their cells in pointed form, as they invariably do when containing the larvae of the latter sort, they widen them at the end, and after adding a cylindrical tube, they close them with a convex capping, differing in nothing from those which they are accustomed to put on the cells of males; but as this tube is of the same capacity as the hexagon cells of the smallest diameter, the larvae which the bees thus cause to descend into this part of the cell, and which are to undergo there their last metamorphosis, become drones of the smaller size. The total length of these extraordinary cells is 20 to 22 lines (1 2/3 to 1 5/6 in. Tr.). Yet, the bees do not always add a cylinder to a pyramidal cell; they are then content with enlarging a little their lower part, and the larvae which make their growth there may become large drones. I am ignorant of the cause of the differences sometimes observed in the shape of these cells; but it appears very certain to me that the bees never are deceived in them, giving us in this occasion a great proof of the instinct with which they are endowed. Nature, which has intrusted the bees with the rearing of their young, and with the care of providing them with aliments proper to their age, or even to their sex, must have taught them how to recognize them. There is so little resemblance between adult males and workers, that some difference must also exist between the larvae of both kinds; doubtless the workers distinguish it, though it has escaped our notice.
are laid in small cells, and never failing to give them a convex capping at the time of their transformation into nymphs, should no longer recognize the worms of this sort, when the eggs from which they hatch are laid in royal cells, and treat them as if they were to become queens. This irregularity depends upon something which I cannot fathom.
In revising what I had the honor to write you upon this subject, I realized that there was still an interesting experiment wanting to complete the history of queens that lay only the eggs of drones; it was to investigate whether those females themselves could distinguish that the eggs which they lay in royal cells are not of the female sort: I had already observed that they do not try to destroy these cells when sealed, and I thence concluded that, in general, the presence of royal cells in their hive does not inspire in them the same aversion as it does to the females whose foundation has not been delayed: but to ascertain the fact more positively, it was necessary to examine how the presence of a cell containing a royal nymph would affect a queen that had never laid any other than drone eggs.
This experiment was easy; I made it on the 4th of September of this year, upon one of my hives which had been deprived of its natural queen, for some time. The bees of this hive had not failed to construct several royal cells to replace their female. I chose this moment to give them a queen whose feoundation had been retarded to the 28th day, and which laid none but the eggs of males; at the same time, I removed all the royal cells, except one that had been sealed 5 days: a single cell remaining was sufficient to show the impression it would make on the strange queen just placed among the bees. If she endeavored to destroy it, it would be, to my mind, a proof that she foresaw the birth of a dangerous rival. Please, Sir, to excuse this use of the term _foresee_, which I recognize as improper, but it avoids a long circumlocution. If, on the contrary, she did not attack it, I would thence conclude that the delay of foundation, which deprived her of the faculty of laying worker eggs, had also impaired her instinct: and that is what came to pass: this queen passed over the royal cell several times, that day and the next, without seeming to distinguish it from the rest; she laid very quietly in the surrounding cells; and notwithstanding the cares constantly bestowed by the bees upon this cell; she did not appear for an instant to suspect the peril with which she was threatened by the royal nymph there included. Besides, the workers treated their new queen as well as they would have treated any other female: they lavished honey and _respects_ upon her, and formed around her those regular circles which one would be tempted to consider as the expression of homage.
Thus, independent of the disorder which the delay of feoundation causes in the sexual organs of queens, it certainly impairs their instinct; they no longer entertain aversion or jeolousy against those of their own sex in the nymph state; they no longer seek to destroy them in their cradles.
This was done on the 6th of September; I amputated the antennae of a female which I had been observing for several months, and which, gifted with great fecundity, had already laid a great number of eggs of workers and males. I placed her afterwards in the same hive where the queen of the preceding experiment still remained, and she exhibited precisely the same signs of agitation and delirium which I think useless to repeat: I shall only add that, in order to better judge of the effect produced by the privation of the antennae upon the industry and instinct of queen bees, I observed attentively how these two mutilated queens treated each other: you have not forgotten, Sir, the fereteness in the combat of two queens, when they possess all their organs: so it was very interesting to learn whether they would experience the same reciprocal aversion, after losing their antennae. We watched these a long time; they met several times in their courses, and did not exhibit the slightest sign of malevolence. This last fact is, in my opinion, the most complete proof of the change operated in their instinct.
Another very remarkable circumstance, which the experiment just related gave me occasion to observe, was the good reception which the bees gave this second stranger queen, while they still preserved the first. After having so often seen the signs of discontent occasioned by a plurality of queens in their hives, after having witnessed the clusters which they form around supernumerary queens to confine them, I could not expect them to render the same care to this second mutilated queen as they had given the first. Was it not that, after the loss of their antennae, these queens no longer retained any characteristics serving to distinguish the one from the other?
I should be the more inclined to admit this conjecture, that when I introduced into this hive a third fertile queen, who had retained her antennae, she was exceedingly badly received. The bees seized her, bit her, surrounded her so closely that she could hardly breathe or move. Therefore, if they treat equally well two females, deprived of their antennae, in the same hive; it is, probably, because they experience the same sensation from both, and have no longer means of distinguishing them from each other.
From all this I conclude that the antennae are not a frivolous ornament for insects; to all appearances they are the organs of touch or smell; but I cannot decide which of these two senses resides in them; it is not impossible that they be organized in such a manner as to fulfill both functions at once.
As in the course of this experiment, the two mutilated females constantly desired to escape from their hives, I wished to see what either of them would do, if set at liberty and whether the bees would accompany her in her flight: therefore, I removed from the hive the first queen introduced, and also the third, leaving the fertile mutilated one, and I enlarged the glass tube of the entrance, so that she might pass out.
During the same day, this queen left her habitation; at first she took flight, but as her belly was still full of eggs, she seemed too heavy, could not sustain her flight, fell down and did not attempt it again. No workers accompanied her. But why did they abandon her at her departure, after having given her so much attention, while she lived among them? You know, Sir, that queens governing a weak swarm are sometimes discouraged, and leave their hive, leading away all their little population with them. Similarly also, sterile queens, and those whose homes are ravaged by the moths, depart and are followed by all their bees. Why then, in the experiment which I relate here, did the workers allow their mutilated queen to depart alone?
I shall answer this question by only a conjecture. It appears that bees are induced to quit their hive by the increase of heat occasioned by the agitation of their queen and the tumultuous disorder which she communicates to them. But the mutilated queens, notwithstanding their delirium, do not excite the workers because in their travel they seek especially the uninhabited parts and the glass panes of the hive; they strike some groups of bees in passing; but the shock is similar to that of any other body that produces only a local and instantaneous emotion; the agitation resulting from it is not communicated from one to another like that occasioned by the hurry of a queen which, in the natural state, wishes to abandon her hive and lead out a swarm: there is no augmented heat and consequently no cause to render the hive insupportable to the bees.
This conjecture, which fairly explains why bees persist in remaining in the hive, after the departure of their mutilated queen, does not account for the motive inducing the queen herself to depart. Her instinct is changed, this is all that I perceive, I see nothing more. It is very fortunate for the hive, however, that she should leave it promptly; for, since the bees do not cease caring for her, as long as she remained they would not think of securing another; and if she delayed her flight, it would be impossible for them to replace her; since the worms of workers would have passed the term at which they are convertible into royal worms, and the hive would perish. Observe, Sir, that the eggs dropped by this mutilated queen could never serve to replace her, for not being deposited in the cells, they wither and produce nothing.
One more remark upon the females that lay only male eggs. Mr. Schirach thought that one branch of their double ovary suffered some alteration; he appears to have supposed that one of these branches contains only male eggs, while the other has none but worker eggs, and as he ascribed to some disease the incapacity of certain queens to lay worker eggs, his hypothesis was fairly plausible. In fact, if the eggs of males and those of workers are indiscriminately mixed in both branches of the ovary, it appears, at first sight, that any cause acting upon this organ should equally affect the two kinds of eggs. If, on the contrary, one branch is solely occupied with eggs of drones and the other with worker eggs only, we may conceive that one of these branches may be diseased and the other intact. This conjecture, however presumable, is confuted by observation. We lately dissected several queens that laid only drone eggs and we found both branchesof their ovaries equally developed, equally _sound,_ if I may use this expression. The only difference which we noticed was that, in these ovaries the eggs did not appear as close together as they are in the ovaries of queens which lay eggs of both sorts.
I have the honor to be &c.
###### THIRTEENTH LETTER
_Economical Views on Bees._
Pregny, October 1st, 1791.
Sir, I shall talk to you in this letter upon the advantages presented by hives of new construction which I have used, and which I have called _book hives_ or _leaf hives,_ for the promotion of the _economical science_ of bees.
I will not relate the different methods hitherto employed to compel bees to yield to us a share of their honey and of their wax; they were all eruel and ill-understood.
It appears evident that when we cultivate bees to share the product of their harvests, we must endeavor to multiply them as much as the nature of the country permits, and consequently spare their lives at the time we plunder them. Therefore it is an absurd proceeding to sacrifice whole colonies to take the riches which they contain. The inhabitants of our districts, who follow no other methods, annually lose enormous numbers of hives, and as our springs are generally unfavorable to swarms, the loss is irreparable. I know well that they will not adopt my method at first: they are too much attached to their prejudices and their old customs; but the naturalists and the enlightened cultivators will be sensible of the utility of the process which I indicate, and if they put it to use, I hope their example will contribute to extend and perfect the culture of bees.