Page images


the service for which its instincts and colony organization so well fit it. Even these useful insects cannot be considered as examples of brilliant efficiency when viewed solely from man's selfish point of view, for they use for their own purpose far more than the beekeeper can take away. There are produced, however, about 250,000,000 pounds of honey annually as the beekeeping industry is now developed.

The worker bees gather the nectar, take it to the hive, remove the excess moisture, change the sugar chemically, and finally store it for future use. They use honey, as we call the finished product, for their own food, to feed the developing brood, and to provide stores for periods of the year when not enough nectar is available to keep them in food. Nectar is not secreted throughout the summer season in most places, but comes periodically with the blooming of the various species of flowers, these periods being called the honey-flows. Then in winter, after the first killing frost, there is the long period during which the adult bees must be fed, for the honeybee is unique among insects of the temperate zone in that it passes the winter as an adult and still does not hibernate.


far from the truth to assume that the total amount of ripened honey used by a good colony of bees is four hundred pounds during the entire year. This will vary enormously, for in lean years the bees do not rear so many young and thus their consumption more nearly fits their income, while in the fat years of nectar, if given the proper room and care, they carry on brood-rearing to the capacity of the queen, the colonies become stronger, and they gather still

more nectar.

The amount of honey used by an average colony of bees to maintain its existence during the year is large. The strength of the colony varies from about 15,000 individuals at the close of winter to perhaps 100,000 at the peak of prosperity and then the number again decreases as winter approaches. These bees must be fed, not only as adults but as larvæ, and they use great quantities of food during the period of development. When we realize that a bee larva may increase in weight several hundred per cent in 24 hours, and that there may be 25,000 of these hungry larvæ in the hive at one time, it will be clear that the colony must maintain a plentiful larder to care for the family needs. It will, perhaps, not be

Assuming, then, for the sake of a definite figure, that every colony must have its four hundred pounds, it is clear that this must be gathered before there is any honey which the beekeeper may take away. The honey removed for human use is usually called “surplus" by beekeepers and this is literally its correct name. In years of plenty the task of finding so much nectar is an easy one and under such circumstances there is surplus for every beekeeper. Unfortunately in most seasons nature does not supply this sugar so freely, and only the beekeepers who manage their bees properly get a surplus. It is not the purpose of this article to tell what the beekeeper may do to increase the amount of honey gathered by the colonies, for this has been so well covered in bee literature and it is so long a story that we must pass on to the broader problem of planning to get more nectar by the promotion of the industry. Perhaps, in the average season and with the fairly good beekeeper the amount of surplus honey for each colony will scarcely exceed fifty pounds.

The honey removed for human use represents, according to our figures, only one ninth of the nectar gathered by the bees. In such an average season an apiary of one hundred colonies may gather nectar equivalent to 221⁄2 tons of honey, whereas the honey crop, or that taken off by the beekeeper, will be only 21⁄2 tons. That the worker bees from one hundred colonies can find nec

tar sufficient to produce 221⁄2 tons of honey within a radius of two miles will give some idea of the stupendous amount of sugar at hand in a region where the the unsuspecting individual would see no sugar production. Of course the bees are not able to get all the nectar during rapid secretion, and in most places there are not enough bees to get one tenth of it. There are many locations where more than one hundred colonies may be kept with profit or where more than a fifty pound surplus is obtained. It really would appear from a study of these figures that the chief end of nature is to pour out sugar syrup.

In the face of these facts it is regrettable that so many beekeepers in the United States fail to get even the small percentage which belongs to them. There are parts of the United States where nearly 90 per cent of all colonies of bees are kept in hollow logs or plain boxes, in which the combs cannot be handled. There are few places where the box hive is not found and probably one third of the bees of the country are so housed. Such beekeeping is almost as bad as no beekeeping at all, for bees in such hives cannot be handled and, without the contribution made by an intelligent beekeeper, the surplus honey of a colony is usually exceedingly small. In this case both the equipment and the management are poor.

It is not enough to buy good hives, however, for the greater number of those beekeepers who have their bees in such hives fail to get their full share of the crop. By failing to give the bees proper attention during the winter, by providing insufficient room for storage of honey (a mistake which is well-nigh impossible to understand and yet one which is most common), and by failure to control swarming, the crop is often reduced one half or more. The equip ment is good but the management is poor. It is a common saying that the

beekeeper invests one part of money and nine parts of brains in his business. If he leaves out the major investment, failure is sure to follow, and this most necessary article is not on sale by the dealers in hives.

The bright side of the picture is seen in the commercial apiaries throughout the country-even though their number be relatively small-where the bees. are properly housed in good hives, where swarming is controlled, where the bees are given just the right amount of room for storage at just the right time, and where they receive adequate protection and care in winter. The number of such apiaries is increasing in an encouraging manner throughout the country, but there is still room for more. Beekeepers who take the proper care of their bees receive an adequate return for their labor and, as it is only the good beekeeper who gets all the available crop, it may safely be stated that the honey crop is chiefly traceable to study and care. Many beekeepers in almost all parts of the country receive a good living from their bees and have incomes equal to those of the good farmers in other lines of agriculture, resulting from the proper directing of the energy of the bees.

As it is only the good beekeeper who helps the bees to conserve much of the vast sugar supply of which mention was made earlier, it will be clear that from the standpoint of national economy it is most desirable to encourage more such beekeepers to go into the business. It will be equally clear that it is a detriment to have those take up the business who will not or cannot make the major investment-that of brains. We do not want in the bee business those who have no brains, but there is little danger from that class. The class which may do actual harm, and which is perhaps the greatest handicap to beekeeping as an industry, consists of those who have the necessary brains but who do not intend to make the investment.


Obviously, I refer to those owning a few colonies of bees, who take it for granted that "bees work for nothing and board themselves," who occupy territory which might better be occupied by commercial beekeepers, who, through lack of care, often allow their bees to be a menace to all the bees about them through the dissemination of diseasein short, who desire to be merely amateur beekeepers. The amateur beekeeper, usually the suburbanite with a few colonies, is rarely of benefit to the beekeeping of the country. He may get a little honey at times for his own use and, if he has a little more than he needs, he may sell it in such a way that he spoils the market in his community for the sale of honey produced by a beekeeper who makes his living through the bees. If the beekeeper with a few colonies would study the problems of beekeeping, would study his bees, and really retain throughout the work that enthusiasm with which he began, he would be a help and not a hindrance to the development of beekeeping.

The only class of beekeepers who do more harm than the amateurs is that group usually spoken of in beekeeping circles as the "farmer-beekeepers.” There is no reason why a good farmer cannot be a good beekeeper, for he is able to make the investment of both money and brains. The great difficulty is that just at the time when the bees demand attention, the general farmer is exceedingly busy with other work. Usually the bees back in the orchard. are neglected from one year to the next, an easy prey to disease, never properly packed for winter, and of no profit to the owner. Whenever you see a few colonies of bees back in the orchard in unpainted hives or behind the barn in all sorts and conditions of boxes, you may be sure that there is no profit here, and probably when the apiary inspector comes along for bee diseases he will "lose his religion" in trying to induce the owner to clean up the wreckage.


I have tried to indicate why it is that all the agencies which are honestly trying to build up the beekeeping industry in the United States are making an effort to induce more people to take up beekeeping as their vocation, and are more or less openly discouraging the amateur. We all realize that everyone who goes in for beekeeping must one day make the start, and usually this start is a small one. Out of the great group of amateurs-there are now about 750,000 of them-must come the professional beekeepers of tomorrow. There is, however, an adequate supply of material on which to work in trying to make better beekeepers of those who now have bees, and it is unnecessary to try to make more beekeepers. As time goes on, some of those who now make a business of beekeeping may be driven out by the inroads of bee disease, unless they are able to invest enough brains to make the fight. Some of our present beekeepers engaged commercially cannot make this investment for, as before stated, they cannot get brains from the hive dealer. We will want some improvement in the personnel of beekeeping, and it may well be that there are persons who now know nothing about bees who might make our very best beekeepers. The risk of making an average amateur is too great to run and, as a result, almost every person engaged in helping beekeeping in this country shudders a bit when anyone suggests taking up bees.

Beekeeping offers opportunity as a commercial enterprise for thousands of alert people. The work of the beekeeper, while not at all a sinecure, is not so hard as that of many other lines of activity; there are abundant periods for recreation and study especially during the winter, and the returns are good. As has been stated, the investment is one part money and nine parts brains. There is no branch of agriculture in which the return is so large in proportion to the financial investment

as in beekeeping, but if the money is invested without putting in the larger investment, there is no hope of success. The prospective beekeeper may be sure that he will be associated with good people in a work which demands such care and study and he will be well repaid for his work and study.

To the person who fondly hopes to have a few colonies of bees just back of the two apple trees to the rear of the suburban home, the best advice is to buy any honey needed at the top of the market, put money into W. S. S. instead of into bees and hives, and read Maeterlinck for the beekeeping experience. It will be found more profitable than the plan which he has had in mind. He may, if he wishes, still look forward to the time when he buys his farm and can keep bees on that, but most suburbanites do not buy the farms to which they look forward. The best way to conserve the vast nectar resources of the United States is to leave the production of honey to professional beekeepers, for they and they alone can save it for us.

For those who do not engage in beekeeping or who may feel that this discussion has barred them from a pursuit to which they have looked forward,

there still remains one of the great joys which have their origin in beekeeping; there is the honey to eat. Comb-honey is of course a pure product just as made by the bees and it is not glucose in paraffin cells, as the sensational press periodically asserts in an effort to portray the ingenuity of the Connecticut Yankee. Extracted honey, that is, honey in liquid form, separated from the comb, is also pure for, since the passage of the Pure Food Act of 1906, honey adulteration is indeed rare. There is probably no food product on the market more free from contamination than either comb or extracted honey.

It is quite possible to put in words an assurance of dietetic fitness and chemical purity. It is not possible to string together a group of English words which describe adequately the taste of fine honey. Its beneficial properties and its value as a food for children and invalids are quite explainable, but the attractiveness of honey, the reason we eat it, lies in its flavor, which is quite beyond words. Each species of nectar-secreting flower gives forth a supply of characteristic flavor so there is abundant variety and a flavor for each taste. It is the nectar of the gods and the very name is sweet.

It is a conservative estimate that the sugar secreted by the flowers of this country each year exceeds the total amount of sugar consumed annually by the American people. Of all the nectar feeding insects, however, the honeybee alone can be used by man for saving nature's vast output of sugar. Each colony requires about 400 pounds for its own living, this leaves the fairly good beekeeper a surplus of about 15 pounds. Hope for the industry lies in commercial apiaries, but only the thoroughly informed, experienced, "good beekeeper," should be encouraged to enter the work

[ocr errors]
[graphic][ocr errors]

The Evolution of the Human Face1

Especially the story of the evolution, from fish to man, of the lacrymal bone as one of the bones around the eye socket


ARLY in the nineteenth century Cuvier, the famous French comparative anatomist, and his colleague, the elder Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, observed that in the skulls of crocodiles and alligators there are four bones around the orbits or eye sockets, and that two of them respectively correspond in position to the lacrymal or tear bone of the human skull, and the other two to the jugal (malar) or check


About the same time it was noted that in fishes also there is a ring of bones around the orbits, and in 1818 Julius Victor Carus sought to identify the human lacrymal with the first subThese identiorbital bone of fishes. fications by Cuvier and Carus were further studied and accepted by Sir Richard Owen and later anatomists

down to our own time; in 1910, however, E. Gaupp, of Freiburg, cast serious doubt upon them, holding that it was the so-called "prefrontal" or front upper element of the circumorbital series of lower vertebrates, which was the real homologue of the human and mammalian lacrymal.

ing about two hundred figures, which will shortly be published in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, and upon which the present article is largely based.

In an earlier article in this magazine I endeavored to summarize the main stages in the evolution of the eyes, nose, and mouth. In the present article attention is centered chiefly upon the evolution, from fish to man, of the bony elements around the orbits or sockets.


As the problems thus raised ramify in many directions, I have closely examined the evidence cited by Gaupp, and during the last few years I have studied the bones around the orbits in all classes of recent and extinct vertebrates from fishes to mammals. I conclude, however, that Gaupp was mistaken, and that Cuvier and Carus were right. This is one of the conclusions in a report on the evolution of the lacrymal bone of vertebrates, compris

In the earliest fishlike vertebrates the whole head was covered with a tough skin surrounding the eyes, the nose and the jaws and covering the roof of the skull and the region of the gills. In the stage represented by Fig. 1 of our series this tough skin had already acquired a bony base which is preserved in many ancient fishes of Devonian and later ages and is still retained by the gar pike and other lowly forms of living fishes. At that time the eyes were surrounded by a ring of about five flat skin-bones named respectively the prefrontal (pf), the postfrontal (po.f), the post orbital (po), the jugal (j) and the lacrymal (1). These were grooved on the surface by a branch of the "lateral line" canal encircling the orbit.

Between this and the next stage of evolution there is a great gap in the palæontological record. But the cumulative evidence of comparative anatomy and embryology indicates that the oldest known four-footed animals. known only from certain footprints in the Upper Devonian and Lower Carbon

Continued from the AMERICAN MUSEUM JOURNAL, October, 1917.

« PreviousContinue »