In so complicated a branch of natural history, correct observation and induction require laborious and long-continued efforts. But, on the subject of bees, the inquirer after truth had, besides, many obstacles to encounter from the very general diffusion of errors, which had been transmitted without due examination from one author to another. The history of the opinions of successive writers sufficiently proves how gradual and slow has been the growth of an accurate knowledge of these insects,—what is now known being the result of the persevering labours of ages. The accumulation of curious and interesting facts, indeed, which has accrued from the researches of Swammerdam, Maraldi, Reaumur, Schirach, Huber, Dzierzon, and Von Siebold, constitutes almost a new science. It will therefore be proper, in this place, to give a connected and systematic account of the natural history of the bee; and the principal features of internal conformation will be described along with the particular functions. Our descriptions will apply, more especially, to the common and best-known species, the A∕>is mellifica, which is the one particularly prized on account of the rich products it affords.

We shall begin with a brief account of the different sorts of bees inhabiting the hive, and of the respective offices of each; we shall then proceed to consider their comparative physiology, including the leading particulars relating to the functions of their various organs, sensitive pow ers, in stincts, secretions, and diseases. We shall also explain the theory of parthenogenesis and the impregnation of queens, and shall follow the bees in their different labours, from the period when the swarm has settled in a new habitation,—detailing the complex structure of their combs, their curious processes of architecture, and the pains they bestow on rearing their progeny, and in sending forth new swarms; and, in the last place, we shall notice the best systems of modern bee-keeping, and give some account of hives and apiarian implements.

The leading feature in the natural history of bees, and one which distinguishes them from almost all other insects, is their singular distribution into three different kinds, constituting to all appearance so many different modifications of sex. The drone (fig. I), which is characterized by a thicker body, a round head, a more flattened shape, and more obtusely terminated abdomen, within which are contained the male organs of generation, is undoubtedly the male of the species. It is distinguished also by the absence of a sting, and by the humming noise that accompanies its flight. The queen-bee (fig. 2), which is unequivocally recognized as the female, is larger than any of the others, has the abdomen of greater length, and is provided with a sting and two ovaria of considerable size. The worker bees (fig. 3) compose the third class, and are distinguished by the smallness of their size, their lengthened proboscis, the peculiar structure of their legs and thighs, which are adapted to the collection of certain materials obtained from vegetables, and by the apparent absence of every trace of generative organs,—we say apparent, because, as will be shown, rudiments of ovaria do exist, which, however, are not perceptible without a very minute and careful dissection. Till recently the worker bees were regarded as devoid of sex, and were accordingly termed neuters. It is their function to perform all the laborious offices for the community, to construct the interior of their habitation, to explore the country in search of nourishment and other materials, to collect and bring them to the hive, and apply them to different purposes, to attend upon the queen, and supply all her wants, to defend the hive from the attacks of depredators, and to carry on hostilities against the various enemies of the tribe. The life of the queen is chiefly engrossed with the duties of laying eggs. The drones producing neither wax nor honey, and depending on the rest for their subsistence, are idle spectators of the others’ labours. They appear to be formed only for the momentary but important duty of impregnation, since they perish when this purpose is accomplished. There is commonly only one perfect queen existing at a time within each hive, and she usually appears to be treated by all the other bees with every mark of affection and of deference. The number of workers is very different in different hives; sometimes there are only a few thousands; at other times from twenty to forty, or even fifty thousand. The drones, even in the spring, seldom compose more than one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of the whole; and, at other seasons, there are none to be found in the hive when a fertile queen is present. In order to form some estimate of the number of bees wdιich can occupy a certain space, Hunter counted what number of drowned bees could be contained in an alehouse pint, and found it to be 2160; so that if a swarm were to fill two quarts, their numbers would be nearly 9000. Reaumur, with the same view of ascertaining their numbers, employed the more accurate method of weighing them; he found that a collection, weighing one ounce, consisted of 336 bees, and, therefore, that 16 ounces, or one pound, would consist of 5376 bees.

Notwithstanding the difference in conformation, instincts, and offices between the queen-bee and the workers, it is now established on the most incontrovertible evidence that they both originally proceed from the same kind of egg or larva, which is capable of being converted, according to circumstances, either into a worker or a queen. It has been proved that the former, although exhibiting no appearance of sexual organs on a superficial examination, are in reality females, and have the rudiments of these organs, which, however, not being developed, are incapable of exercising theiι* proper functions, although it sometimes happens that they become sufficiently so to enable a worker to lay unfecundated eggs. It may be remarked that the idea of the worker bees being radically females had been suggested long ago by Dr Warder in his Monarchy of Bees, in which he terms them “True Amazons;” but no attention had been paid to his opinion. The real merit of this great discovery, which affords a key to a multitude of hitherto inexplicable facts, unquestionably belongs to Schirach. When first announced to the world it was received with suspicion by the greater number of naturalists, and with complete incredulity by others. It was, indeed, at variance with the whole tenor of the observations of Swammerdam, Maraldi, and Reaumur. Wilhelmi, the brother-in-law of Schirach, though an eye-witness of the experiments from which this theory had been deduced, for a long time refused to admit the doctrine, but at length became one of its most strenuous supporters. It is noticed in a vein of sarcastic ridicule by John Hunter in his otherwise excellent paper on bees in the Philosophical Transactions. Needham wrote a Memoir for the Imperial Academy of Brussels in 1777 for the express purpose of refuting it, and he then inveighs in strong language against those naturalists who had deigned to give it the least countenance. Bonnet, after exercising a laudable scepticism, and making a diligent inquiry, in which he displays a genuine spirit of philosophy, yielded a reluctant assent. But the truth of the doctrine has since been placed beyond the reach of controversy by a multiplied series of observations and experiments in different parts of Europe and America.

In considering the physiology of the bee, the first function that claims our notice is that of nutrition. The food of bees is principally of two kinds, namely, the fluid secretions of vegetables contained in the nectaries of the flowers, and the dust of the anthers, which has been termed by botanists the pollen, but which, when collected by the bees, has received a variety of appellations, such as farina, bee-bread, &c. Occasionally, however, we find bees feeding upon other saccharine substances besides honey, such as honey-dew, syrup, &c.

The organs by which they collect food are extremely complex, comprising instruments adapted to the reception of liquid aliment as well as those fitted for the division of solid materials. Reaumur has given a most elaborate description of these organs, and corrects some errors into which Swammerdam had fallen. For the purpose of taking up fluids, bees are provided, in common with all hymenopterous insects, with a long and flexible proboscis or trunk, which may be considered as a lengthened tongue, though, strictly speaking, it is formed by a prolongation of the under lip. It is not tubular, as Swammerdam had supposed, but solid throughout; and the minute depression at its extremity is not the aperture of any canal through which liquids can be absorbed. The trunk of the bee performs strictly the office of a tongue, and not that of a tube for suction; for when it takes up honey or any other fluid aliment, the under or the upper surfaces are more immediately applied to it, and rolled from side to side, and the bee thus licks up what adheres to it, while the extremity of the trunk is frequently not applied at all to the substance taken up. The trunk is supported on a pedicle, which admits of being bent back or propelled forwards, and thus can retract or stretch out the trunk to a considerable extent. Protection is given to it by a double sheath; the external part consisting of two scales furnished by the expansion of one of the portions of the labial palpi, and the internal formed by the prolongation of the two external portions of the jaw. The whole member thus consists of five principal parts, on which account .Fabricius termed it lingua quinquefida.

For the purpose of mechanically dividing solid materials, the mouth is furnished with two strong mandibles and four palpi; they are but little employed in eating, but are of great use in enabling the insect to seize and break down hard substances for other purposes. In the worker bee all these parts are of larger dimensions than in the other kinds. The teeth are two in number, and have the form of concave scales with sharp edges; they are fixed to the ends of the jaws, and play horizontally as in other insects. Reaumur describes and delineates a large aperture above the root of the proboscis, which is so surrounded with fleshy parts as not to be readily seen unless the proboscis be extended and bent downwards. This he considers as the mouth or orifice of the gullet; on the upper side of which, and of course opposite to the root of the proboscis, a small fleshy and pointed organ is seen, which he regards as the tongue, assisting in the deglutition of the food. Through this orifice, it is presumed, all the aliment, whether liquid or solid, passes; the former being conveyed to it by the trunk, which, by its contractile power, presses forward the fluids it has collected between itself and the inner sheath, and the latter being received directly after its comminution by the teeth, behind which it is situated. Latreille, however, whose authority is great on a point of this nature, thinks that Reaumur has deceived himself with regard to such an aperture, and disbelieves its existence. He conceives that the food simply passes on by the sides of the tongue, finding its way from thence into the oesophagus and so on to the stomach.

The bee has two stomachs. The first is a large transparent membranous bag, pointed in front and swelling out into two pouches behind. It performs an office in some respects analogous to that of the crop in birds; for it receives and retains for a time the fluid of the nectaries, which does not appear to differ in any respect from honey. Hunter observes that whatever time the contents of this reservoir may be retained he never found them altered so as to give the idea of digestion having taken place. The coats of this reservoir are muscular, by which means it is capable of throwing up the honey into the mouth, so that it is regurgitated into the honey cells or imparted to other bees. None of it ever passes out from the extremity of the trunk as Swammerdam had believed. For the purpose of digestion a second stomach is provided, which takes its origin from the middle of the two posterior lobes of the former, and is of a lengthened cylindrical shape. Its communication with the intestine is not direct, but takes place by a projecting or inverted pylorus, thickest at its most prominent part, with a very small opening in the centre, of a peculiar construction. This inward projecting part is easily seen through the coats of the reservoir, especially if full of honey. A similar kind of structure takes place at the communication of the first with the second stomach, and having the properties of a valve, must effectually prevent all regurgitation from the latter into the former. *

The pollen, or fertilising dust of flowers, is collected by the bees for the purpose of feeding the young. It is stored in the cells until required, and then partly digested by the nurses with honey, and a kind of chyle formed of it. When natural pollen cannot be obtained the bees will eagerly take farina, either of rye, chestnuts, or pease, as a substitute, which appears to answer the same purpose. The bees, by means of the pencil of hair which grows on the tarsi, first collect a certain quantity of pollen, ar.d then knead it together into a ball, and place it in the space situated at the middle joint or tibia of the hinder leg, which has been termed the basket. This portion of the leg is smooth and concave, somewhat like the bowl of a spoon, with stout hairs of moderate length rising from its left edge and nearly straight. Other hairs on the right side are much longer and are curved, rising up with a high arch and crossing more than half the width of the hollow, making a large basket-like enclosure for a load of pollen. In order to gather large quantities at once, the bees are sometimes observed to roll their bodies on the flower, and then brushing off the pollen which adheres to them with the feet, form it into two masses, which they dispose of as before mentioned; and it is said that in moist weather, when the particles of pollen cannot be readily made to adhere, they return to their hive dusted all over with pollen, which they then brush off with their feet. The part in Nature’s economy thus unconsciously performed by the bee in common with other insects is most important. By this means the pollen is carried from flower to flower, or from the stamens to the pistils, and plants are made fertile which without such aid would often remain barren.

It was long the received opinion that wax was but a modification of pollen, which required for this conversion only a slight pressure and a kind of kneading by the feet of the bees. But it hae been completely proved, by the researches of Duchet, Hunter, and Huber, that wax is a secretion from the abdomen of the bee, and that it depends not at all on the pollen which the insect may consume (indeed, it is doubtful if it consumes any), but on the quantity of honey or other saccharine substance which it receives into its stomach. The first light thrown on this subject was in a letter of Wilhelmi to Bonnet in 1768, in which he says that wax, instead of being ejected by the mouth, exudes from the rings which enclose the posterior part of the body. Of this we may satisfy ourselves by drawing out the bee from the cell in which it is working with wax, by means of the point of a fine needle; and we may perceive, in proportion as the body is elongated, that the wax will make its appearance under the rings in the form of small scales. Duchet, in his Culture des Abeilles, gives a full statement of the principal circumstances attending the production of wax, which he very j ustly ascribes to the conversion of honey into this substance in the body of the bee. These facts appear to have been entirely overlooked till the subject was again brought forward by Hunter, in his paper in the Philosophical Transactions for 1792. Huber was engaged in prosecuting his inquiries on this subject at the same period with Hunter, and discovered, in 1793, the existence of regular receptacles or pouches, from the coats of which the wax is secreted, and within which it accumulates till its edges raise the scales, and become apparent externally. These plates of wax are withdrawn by the bee itself, or some of its fellow-labourers, and are applied in a manner hereafter to be described.

Huber has shown, by a series of well-conducted experiments, that, in a natural state, the quantity of wax secreted is in proportion to the consumption of honey, but that an equal or even greater quantity will be formed if the bee be fed on a solution of sugar in water. Warmth and rest promote this process of secretion; for the bees, after feeding plentifully on saccharine food, hang together in a cluster without moving, for several hours, at the end of which time large plates of wax are found under the abdominal rings. This happened when bees were confined and restricted from any other sort of nourishment, whilst those that were fed on pollen and fruits alone did not produce any wax. In the second volume of Huber’s Nouvelles Observations sur les Abeilles, he describes minutely the anatomy of the pouches or receptacles for the wax, which are parts peculiar to the working bees, being totally absent iu the males and queens, The cavities are lined with a membrane, which presents a number of folds, forming an hexagonal net-work, not unlike the appearance in the second stomach of ruminant quadrupeds, and evidently destined to perform the office of secretion.

Among the secretions peculiar to the bee, the poison which is poured into the wounds made by the sting deserves to be noticed. It is said to owe its mischievous efficacy to certain pungent salts. If a bee is provoked to strike its sting against a plate of glass, a drop of poison will be discharged; and if this is placed under a microscope, the salts may be seen to concrete, as the liquor dries, into clear, oblong, pointed crystals. The sting consists of a finely-pointed tubular instrument, open along the whole length of its upper surface, this opening being closed by two slender horny barbs each having about ten serrations on its outer edge. These barbs are not projected in advance of the sting as usually described, neither are they within the sting, but complete its outer tubular surface, down the centre of which the poison is injected from a little bag at the root of the sting. The serrations prevent the worker bee from withdrawing its sting from an eneniy; and, consequently, it is torn from the body, with a portion of the intestines, causing the death of the bee.

Respiration is effected by means totally different from those which are usual in the higher classes of the Animal Kingdom. As the blood, or fluid corresponding to the blood, cannot be presented to the air in any separate organ, the air must be conducted to the blood wherever such a fluid is met with. For this purpose tracheae, or air-tubes, having several external openings or spiracles, are made...

BEECHEY, Sir William, R.A., a fashionable portraitpainter, born at Burford in December 1753, was originally bred as a conveyancer, but a strong love for painting induced him to become a pupil at the Royal Academy in 1772. Some of his smaller portraits gained him considerable reputation; he began to be employed by the nobility, and in 1793 became associate of the Academy. In the same year he was made portrait-painter to Queen Charlotte, an appointment which increased his celebrity. He painted the portraits of the members of the royal family, and of nearly all the most famous or fashionable persons of the time. What is considered his finest production is a review of cavalry, a large composition, in the foreground of which he introduced portraits of George III., the Prince of Wales, and the duke of York, surrounded by a brilliant staff on horseback. It was painted in 1798, and obtained for thi artist the honour of knighthood, and the rank of R.A. The earlier portraits of Beechey were carefully drawn and well finished; but in his later days the extent of his employment rendered him less careful in his design. His works are generally vigorous, but are wanting in grace and dignity. He was a good, but not an eminent portrait painter. He died in January 1839, at the advanced age of eighty-six.