APPENDIX.HISTORY OF MOVABLE FRAMES.

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 RÃ©aumur. 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."â€”(Edinburgh edition of Huber, p. 4). AlthoughMorlot and others attempted to improve this hive, it never gained favor with practical apiarists.

Fig. 111.

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, andabout 9Â½ inches long, are formed 1â…› 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.

Fig. 112.

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 inMunn'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 Â£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 theScientific 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 theAlbany 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 theAmerican 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 thesehives 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-lovingeditor of the early volumes of theAmerican 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 failedâ€”failing, possibly, only because he aimed at nothing more than constructing an observing hive, suitable for his purposes. Mr. Langstroth's object was other andhigher. He aimed at making frames movable, interchangeable, andpracticallyserviceable in bee culture." And how true what follows: "Nobodybefore 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 theDollar Newspaperfor January 21, 1857, a brother, Mr. W. C. Harbison, who also lived with his fatherat 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 havesingly 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, buteven 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 beenshamefully 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.

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, tulipiferÃ¦â€”the Lecanium of the tulip treeâ€”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 Stateâ€”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 treeâ€”Magnolia acuminata.

Wherever the tulip-tree lice have been observed sucking the sap and vitality from the trees, there the bees have alsobeen 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 (CoccidÃ¦), but of the plant-louse family (AphidÃ¦), 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?

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 â…” 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 plainlyvisible 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 larvÃ¦ 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 antennÃ¦ 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.

Fig. 113.

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

If valued shade or honey trees are attacked by these insatiate destroyers, they could probably be saved by discreet pruningâ€”cutting off the affected branches before serious injury was done, or by syringing the trees with a solution of whale oil, soapâ€”or even common soft soap would doâ€”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. 1is slightly magnified; the others are largely magnified.

(Leonurus cardiaca L.)

Fig. 114.

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.

Fig. 115.

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.114and115), and in the axiles of the latter are whorls of blossoms (Figs.115and116), 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.

Fig. 116.

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.

Fig. 117.

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.

I have received from J. M. Putnam, of New Orleans, La., flowers of theMespilus 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.

TheMespilus Germanicagrows in England, and is much praised for its fruit. From Mr. Putnam's account, theM. Japonicais 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.

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 familyPhymatidÃ¦ Uhr. It is thePhymata 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.

Fig. 118.â€”Side view, natural size.

Fig. 119.â€”Magnified twice.

Fig. 120.â€”Beak, much magnified.

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, 119d, 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 andantennÃ¦ (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).

Fig. 121.â€”Antenna, much magnified.

Fig. 122.â€”Anterior Leg, magnifiedâ€”exterior view.

Fig. 123.â€”Interior view.

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,bandc) 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 thegenus Phymata, is the enlarged anterior legs (Figs.122,123and124). 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.

Fig. 124.â€”Claw, extended.

Fig. 125.â€”Middle Leg, much magnified.

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 plantâ€”being attractive as a honey plant to beesâ€”theslow 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.

Fig. 126.

Fig. 127.

Mallophora orcina and Mallophora bomboides.

I have received from several of our enterprising bee-keepers of the Southâ€”Tennessee, Georgia and Floridaâ€”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 isthus 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 AsilidÃ¦, 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.

Fig. 128.

Fig. 131.

The insects in question belong to Loew's third group, Asilina, as the antennÃ¦ 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 isMallophora. The venation of the wings much resembles that of the genusPromachus, 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 theAsilus Missouriensis(seeFig, 108), while the one in question is much like the neuter bumble-bee in form.

InMallophoraandPromachus, the venation is as represented inFig, 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 antennÃ¦ (Fig, 128) ends in a prolonged bristle.

One of the most common of these pests, which I am informed by Dr. Hagen, isMallophora 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 antennÃ¦ three-jointed, the last joint terminating in a bristle, while the beak is very large, strong, and like the eyes and antennÃ¦, coal black. This is mostly concealed by the light yellow hairs, which are crowded thick about the mouth and between the eyes.

Fig. 129,

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 theMallophora 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.

Fig. 130.

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 theLaphria thoracicaof 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.

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.

Back to Index Next