nd previous to the young
queens leaving them{K}.
I shall add but a few words to this long letter. There is nothing so
very surprising in the production of fertile workers, when we consider
the consequences of M. Shirach's beautiful discovery. But why do they
lay male eggs only? I can conceive, indeed, that the reason of their
laying few is from their ovaries being but imperfectly expanded, but I
can form no idea why all the eggs should be those of males, neither can
I any better account for their use in hives; and hitherto, I have made
no experiments on their mode of fecundation.
_PREGNY, 25. August 1791._
FOOTNOTES:
{I} It is difficult to discover whether the author thinks, as some
naturalists, that bees are instrumental in hatching the eggs.--T.
{J} The original is extremely confused in the preceding passages.--T.
{K} I have frequently seen queens, at the moment of production, begin
first by attacking the royal cells and then the common ones beside them.
As I had not seen fertile workers when I first observed this fact, I
could not conceive from what motive the fury of the queen was thus
directed towards the common cells. But now I know they can distinguish
the species included, and have the same instinctive jealousy or aversion
towards them as against the nymphs of queens properly so denominated.
LETTER VI.
_ON THE COMBATS OF QUEENS: THE MASSACRE OF THE MALES: AND WHAT SUCCEEDS
IN A HIVE WHERE A STRANGER QUEEN IS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE NATURAL ONE._
M. de Reaumur had not witnessed every thing relative to bees when he
composed his history of these industrious animals. Several observers,
and those of Lusace in particular, have discovered many important facts
that escaped him; and I, in my turn, have made various observations of
which he had no suspicion: at the same time, and this is a very
remarkable circumstance, not only has all that he expressly declares he
saw been verified by succeeding naturalists, but all his conjectures are
found just. The German naturalists, Schirach, Hattorf, and Riems
sometimes contradict him, indeed, in their memoirs; but I can maintain
that, while combating the opinion of M. de Reaumur, it is they who are
almost always wrong; of which several instances might be adduced.
What I shall now proceed to say will give me an opportunity of detailing
some interesting facts.
It was observed by M. de Reaumur, that when any supernumerary queen is
either produced in a
|