apparently too indulgent towards the gourmand. The author stands completely exculpated from the charge of Dr. Last against the regular physicians, who "drenched the bowels of Christians with pulse and water, as if they were the tripes of a brute beast." Thus it is remarked, "as a singular circumstance, that persons of a gouty habit should be most fond of highseasoned dishes;" but the singularity would have vanished, had the proposition been, that the persons most fond of high-seasoned dishes usually have a gouty habit. It was not, however, to be expected, that with a stoical severity, Ignotus should bluntly attack the very criticks on whose verdict his fame must depend. He is not sparing of gentle hints for their welfare; and compounds, on the part of Archeus, for three days' high living, with a fourth day's temperance, and occasionally some gentle physick. Where truth commands, there's no man can offend, That with a modest love corrects his friend; So the reproof has temper, kindness, ease, In fine, as long as a man thinks more frequently and more seriously about his dinner than about any thing else, as was the unvaried opinion and practice of Dr. Johnson, so long will the parsley wreath won by Ignotus remain unblighted. The work is, with great propriety, dedicated "To those gentlemen who freely give two guineas for a turtle dinner at the tavern, when they might have a more wholesome one at home for ten shillings." A fatted hog, the emblem, perhaps, of one of these worthy patrons, decorates the frontispiece. And so we take leave of Ignotus, in the words of Beaumont and Fletcher, as of "a gentleman extraordinarily seen in deep mysteries; well read, deeply learned, and thoroughly grounded in the hidden knowledge of all sauces, sallads, and pot-herbs whatsoever." FROM THE EDINBURGH REVIEW. Nouvelles Observations sur les Abeilles, adresseés à M. Charles Bonnet, par Francois Huber. New Observations on the Natural History of Bees. By Francis Huber. Translated from the original. 12mo. pp. 300. Edinburgh. London. THE natural history of the common bee has been more carefully examined, and more amply treated of than that of any other of the insect tribe. Yet so complicated and extraordinary are some of the processes of nature, that the most diligent observers were long utterly unable to account for some circumstances in the history of this insect, and published to the world the most opposite explanations. Several of the most important and intricate problems, however, seem now to be finally resolved by the Genevese observer, M. Huber; of whose valuable little work we purpose to lay before our readers a pretty full analysis. We regard the facts contained in this volume, as extremely important to the naturalist; for they not only greatly elucidate the history of this wonderful insect, but present some singular facts in physiology hitherto unknown, and even unsuspected. For the sake of those who may never have made bees the particular object of their study, it may not be unacceptable, previously to sketch, in a very few words, the striking outlines of their history; and to explain some terms generally employed in treating of them. A hive contains three kinds of bees. 1. A single queen bee, distinguishable by the great length of her body, and the proportional shortness of her wings. 2. Working bees, female nonbreeders; or, as they were formerly called, neuters, to the amount of many thousands. These are the smallest sized bees in the hive, and are armed with a sting. 3. Drones, or males, to the number, perhaps, of 1500 or 2000. These are larger than the workers, and of a darker colour. They make a great noise in flying, and have no sting. The whole labour of the community is performed by the workers. They elaborate the wax and construct the cells; they collect the honey and feed the brood The drones, numerous as they are, serve no other purpose than to ensure the impregnation of the few young queens that may be produced in the course of the season; and they are regularly massacred by the workers in the beginning of autumn. It is the office of the queen bee to lay the eggs. These remain about three days in the cells before they are hatched. A small white worm then makes its appearance, called indifferently worm, larva, maggot, or grub. This larva is fed with honey for some days, and then changes into a nymph or hupa.* After passing a certain period in this state, it comes forth a perfect winged insect. M. Huber sets out with describing the kind of improved glass hive, which he employed in his experiments, and which he himself invented. He styles it the leaf-hive or book-hive [ruche en feuillets, or ruche en livre] from its opening and shutting somewhat in the manner of the leaves of a book. It consists of several frames or boxes, a foot square, and in width fifteen French lines, or sixteen English: that is, an inch and one third. The boxes are placed parallel to each other, and connected together by hinges. Availing himself of a known instinct in the bees leading them to complete any piece of a comb in the direction in which they find it begun, unless they meet with some insurmountable obstacle, he placed pieces of comb in each box, in such a position as to induce them to build perpendicular to the horizon. The lateral surfaces of the combs were thus only three or four lines distant from the glass panes; and, by opening the dif ferent divisions of the hive successively, both surfaces of every comb were, at pleasure, brought fully into view. M. Huber did not experience any difficulty in introducing swarms into these leaf-hives; and he found, that after the lapse of about three days, when the colony was fairly established, the bees submitted patiently to his daily inspections. Their tranquillity he ascribes, with some probability, to the surprise, and perhaps fear, produced by the sudden admission of the light; for he observed that they were always less tractable after sunset An engraved plan of the leafhive accompanies the work; and from it, along with the explanation given by the author, we have no doubt that any person, fond of observing the wonderful economy of the busy tribe, might easily construct such a hive. And we believe that he would also find it most excellently adapted to the purpose in view. Both the queen bee and the drones being considerably Larger than the working bees, by adapting glass tubes exactly to the size of the workers, both queens and drones may be effectually excluded, or effectually kept prisoners, as the nature of the experiments may require. The work appears in the form of letters, written, or supposed to be written, by M. Huber to the late M. Bonnet, the celebrated author of the Contemplation de la Nature. Nine of the letters are occupied with the Some authors employ the terms chrysalis and aurelia, in speaking of bees, as if they were synonimous with nympha but a nymph is distinguished by being always rather soft; of a pale or dull colour; and exhibiting the traces of the extre mities; while a chrysalis or aurelia is crustaceous, and generally, as implied in the name, of a golden yellow colour. natural history of the queen bee; three treat of the formation of swarms; and the last, or thirteenth letter, contains some economical considerations on bees. The experiments are detailed with great perspicuity, pretty much in the familiar style in which they had been entered in M. Huber's journal. By this means, the reader is in some measure led to consider himself as looking on, or assisting the author to perform them. Subjoined to the first letter, there is an epistle from M. Bonnet to Huber, in which that philosopher suggests a number of experiments, the prosecution and results of several of which, are related in the subsequent part of the work. In the first two letters, he treats of the impregnation of the queen bee, a subject hitherto involved in the most profound obscurity. The drones are evidently males; but the most careful observation had never been able to detect any thing like sexual intercourse between them and the queen bees. Schirach, a German naturalist, well known for his discoveries concerning bees, boldly denied that such intercourse was necessary to her im pregnation; and in this he is stoutly supported by our countryman Bonner. Swammerdam. again, remarking that the drones, at cert in seasons, when collected in clusters, exhaled a strong odour, broached an opinion that this odour, proceeding from whole clusters of drones, was a kind of aura seminatis, which produced fecundation by penetrating the body of the female. There are generally from 1500 to 2000 males in a hive, while there are only two or three queens to be impregnated in a season: and Swammerdam seemed to have found, in his hypothesis, an easy explanation of this enor mous disproportion in the numbers of the sexes, Réaumur, however, combated this fanciful doctrine; and our author has confuted it by direct experiment. He confined all the drones of a hive in a tin case, perforated with minute holes, sufficient to allow any emanation to escape This tin case was placed in a well inhabited hive, where there was a young queen, who could not fail to be subjected to the odour; but she remained barren. Maraldi was the first to suggest another hypothesis, which apparently possessed a greater degree of probability. He imagined that the eggs were fecundified by the drones, after being deposited in the cells, in a way analogous to the fecundation of the spawn of fishes by the milters. Mr. Debraw, of Cambridge (in Phil. Trans. 1777) strenuously supported this doctrine, and gave it a certain degree of plausibility, by referring to nume rous experiments. He even affirmed that the milt-like fluid of the drones might be seen in the cells. The supposition, that the drones performed this important office, satisfactorily accounted for the prodigious numbers of them found in a hive. But Mr. Debraw does not seem to have attended to this circumstance; that great numbers of eggs are laid by the queen between the months of September and April which prove fertile, although in that season there exist no males to supply the milt-like liquor. M Huber is of opinion, that the appearance of a fluid had been merely an optical illusion, arising from the reflection of the light at the bottom of the cell. He made the direct experiment of rigidly excluding every male from a hive, and yet found that eggs laid by the queen in this interval were as fertile as when the males were admitted. Mr. Debraw's opinion, therefore, must be erroneous; for the fertility of these eggs must have depended on the previous impregnation of the queen herself, and not on any thing that could happen after they were deposited. M. Hattorf, in a memoir published in Schirach's work, * endeavoured to show that the queer is impregnated by herself. This was also M. Schirach's opinion; and it seems to be that of Mr. Bonner. It is an opinion, however, that requires no refutation. The cautious Huber, remarking how much confusion had arisen from making experiments with queens taken indiscriminately from the hive (the source of the errour just mentioned) thenceforward selected those which were decidedly in a virgin state, and with whose history he was acquainted from the moment they had left the cell. The illustrious Linnæus was of opinion that the queen bees formed an actual union with the drones; and he seems even to have suspected that this union proved fatal to the latter. His opinion on both points has now been verified. For from many experiments made in the course of the years 1787 and 1788, M. Huber found, that the young queens are never impregnated as long as they remain in the interiour of the hive. If confined within its walls, they continue barren, though amidst a seraglio of males. To receive the approaches of the male, the queen soars high in the air, choosing that time of day when the heat has induced the drones to issue from the hive; and love is now ascertained to be the motive of the only distant journey which a young queen ever makes. From this excursion she returns in the space of about half an hour, with the most evident marks of fecundation; for, far from being satisfied with the prolifick aura of Swammerdam, she actually carries away with her the ipsa verenda of the poor drone who never lives to see his offspring; but falls a sacrifice to the momentary bliss of his aërial amour. The most complete proof of these facts is afforded by the detail of a number of concurring experiments. It is curious that our countryman Bonner should have remarked those aërial excursions of the young queens, without ever suspecting their real object, or observing the marks of fecundation upon their return to the hive. The worthy bee-master thought they were merely taking an airing. “I have often," says he, "seen young queens take an airing on the second or third day of their age." M. Huber also assigns a satisfactory cause for the existence of such a great number of males. As the queen is obliged to traverse the expanse of the atmosphere," he observes," it is requisite the males should be numerous, that she may have the chance of meeting some one of them. But the reason why impregnation cannot be accomplished within the hive, has not yet been ascertained." In letter third, M. Huber states the accidental discovery of the very singular and unexpected consequences which follow from retarding the impregnation of the queen bee beyond the twentieth or twenty-first day of her life. In the natural order of things, or when impregnation is not retarded, the queen begins to lay the eggs of workers forty-six hours after her intercourse with the male, "and she continues for the subsequent eleven months to lay these alone [only;] and it is only after this period, that a considerable and uninterrupted laying of the eggs of drones commences. When, on the contrary, impregnation is retarded after the twentieth day, the queen begins, from the forty-sixth hour, to lay the eggs of drones; and she lays no other kind during her whole life." It would be tedious to detail the experiments. They were numerous, and the results uniform. "I occupied myself," says M. Huber, the remainder of 1787, and the two subsequent years, with experiments on retarded fecundation, and had constantly the same results. It is undoubted, therefore, that when the copulation of queens is retarded beyond the twentieth day, only an imperfect impregnation is operated; instead of lay * Histoire Naturelle de la Reine des Abeilles, 1772. Bonner on Bees, 8vo edit. p. 165. ing the eggs of workers and of males equally, she will lay those ly." p. 52. males on This discovery is entirely M. Huber's own; and so difficult is it to offer any plausible explanation of the fact, that he himself has scarcely attempted it. The difficulty is much increased when we consider, that a single interview with the male is sufficient for fecundifying the whole eggs that a queen will lay in the course of at least two years, p. 54; and that therefore it would be in vain to say, that an early impregnation may be necessary for the eggs of workers, and a later for those of drones. It will be recollected, that, in the natural state, the queen lays the eggs of workers for the first eleven months, to the amount of many thousands, before she lays a single drone egg; but that when her impregnation has been for a few days retarded she begins at once to lay the eggs of drones. The generally admitted principle of the successive expansion of eggs, renders this very puzzling; for how comes it that the eggs of drones, which naturally require eleven months to come to perfection in the ovaria of the queen, are, in this case, perfected in forty-eight hours? What has become of the vast multitude of workers' eggs that the queen ought first to have deposited? It is certain that, during the first twenty days of her life, the eggs of workers ought to be laid; but it would seem, that intercourse with the male being denied, the first set of eggs become effete; they waste away, and perhaps drop from the animal. A fact mentioned by M. Huber, in a subsequent page, p. 65, seems to support this notion. "The body of those queens whose impregnation has been retarded, is shorter than common: the extremity remains slender, while the first two rings next the thorax are uncommonly swoln." On dissecting the double ovary, both branches were found to be equally expanded and equally sound; but the eggs were apparently not placed so closely together as in common queens. A queen, in ordinary circumstances, lays about 3000 eggs in the space of two months, which is at the rate of 50 a day. It was not correctly ascertained, whether the queens whose impregnation was retarded laid a number of drone eggs corresponding to the whole number of eggs both of workers and drones which they ought to have deposited; but it is certain that they laid a greater number of drone eggs than they ought naturally to have done. The hives in which only drones were produced, always failed, and, indeed, generally broke up before the queens had done laying; for, after the lapse of some time, the workers finding themselves overwhelmed with drones, fruges consumere nati, and receiving no increase of their own number, abandoned the hive, and at the same time despatched their unfortunate sovereign. In order to throw some light on this curious subject, M. Huber suggests the propriety of instituting analogous experiments on other insects; by retarding, for example, the impregnation of the females of other species of bees, of wasps, and of butterflies. In the course of a number of experiments made on this subject, some other curious points in the natural history of the bee were accidentally illustrated. Thus a queen, twenty-seven days old, having been impregnated on the 31st of October, did not begin to lay at the expiration of forty-six hours, apparently on account of the weather having, in the mean time, become extremely cold. She was confined in a hive all winter; and on the 4th of April ensuing, prodigious numbers both of larvæ and pupe were found; and all of them produced drones. Here, as in other experiments, retardation had rendered the queen incapable of laying the eggs of workers: but this result is the more remarkable, as she did not commence laying until four months and a half after fecundation. It is not rigorously true, therefore, that the term of forty-six hours elapses between the copulation of the female and her laying; the interval may be much longer if the weather grows cold. Lastly, |