Huber's New Observations on the Natural History of Bees

[Michael Bush]

----------- From previous post by me with corrective statements for Naturebee.

"The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm-now begins spinning its cocoon, in which operation thirty-fix hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the twentieth day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly sate."

François Huber, 4 September 1791. From the 1806 edition of "New Observations on the Natural History of Bees" page 151

These are probably not Huber's errors but the translators, but still need to be corrected lest you be led astray by outdated erroneous information. Corrective statements:

The "worm" state is not the correct term. It should be larva.

The "vermicular" state should also be corrected to "larva"

"Nymph" is also not the correct term, it should be pupa.

"Fly" is also not the correct term, it should be adult.

Hope no one got confused.

[Axtmann]

François Huber (July2, 1750 – December 22, 1831) was a Swiss naturalist.
He was born at Geneva, of a family which had already made its mark in the literary and scientific world.

François Huber was only fifteen years old when he began to suffer from a disease which gradually resulted in total blindness; but, with the aid of his wife, Marie Aimée Lullin, and of his servant, François Burnens, he was able to carry out investigations that laid the foundations of a scientific knowledge of the life history of the honey bee.

Michael I think the translator dinÂ’t made mistakes. During this time they didÂ’t know there was larva or pupa. In my book from this time they always talking about worms. It was also unkown that are drones in the hive. Scientists talked about bees, a king and there are bumblebees also in each hive without sting. [Memoires de lÂ’ Academie Royale des Scienes, Paris annee 1712]
There was a big development during the 1700th. Till 1753 they are talking about bee, king and bumblebee and 20 year later they know there are bees, a queen and drones.

[Michael Bush]

>Michael I think the translator dinÂ’t made mistakes. During this time they didÂ’t know there was larva or pupa.

Huber did, his name were just translated thus. He specified exactly how many days in what state and did much research on how they spin the cocoon etc.

>In my book from this time they always talking about worms. It was also unkown that are drones in the hive.

Drones and how the queen was mated or eggs got fertilized were one of his main research topics and he was the first to get it right on all counts. That drones were from unfertilized eggs, that a queen only mates during brief period. The the drone loses his member in the process. That mating takes place outside the hive in flight. That an unmated queen would lay only drones.

>Scientists talked about bees, a king and there are bumblebees also in each hive without sting. [Memoires de lÂ’ Academie Royale des Scienes, Paris annee 1712]

But not Huber. It was a queen from the begining to the end of the book and his observations were all based on careful, repeated experiments.

>There was a big development during the 1700th. Till 1753 they are talking about bee, king and bumblebee and 20 year later they know there are bees, a queen and drones.

They were already to bees, queens and drones when Huber started, but they didn't not know how the eggs were fertilized, how the queen mated, that unmated queens laid only drones, etc. etc. etc.

Try reading Huber and you'll only find a few places where his speculation (which he identifies as such) is a bit off or he states something he observed many times as "always" when we now know it's "usually". Other than that I don't think you'll find errors. It is the first book on the Natural History of Bee based on facts.

[JBJ]

Wow, just burned a chunk of time reading this entire thread. It seems to me that this discussion is the whole nature vs. nurture debate all over again. The truth is the environment (cell size, temperature etc.) interplays with the genetic component. Cell size could be considered primarily a genetic component in a wild hive left to its own devises; not necessarily so in ‘managed” hives. Some bees are hard wired to make certain ranges of cell sizes under given conditions and they will have certain ranges of egg to adult cycle periods depending on genetics and local conditions. I would wager that it is possible to breed lines of resistant bees that prefer one size range where another line tends to use a larger range. A look at several species of Apis, including dorsata, cerana, and the various mellifera, reveals a range of cell sizes and susceptibility to a variety Varroa species. Sympatric populations of dorsata and cerana reveal that there are many possibilities for mite resistance. The two species have wildly different cell sizes and no problems with Varroa. Varroa has been found in dorsata colony debris, but not in cells suggesting that it cannot reproduce in the large cells of these large bees. Mite resistance/tolerance is bound to have many components besides cell size. It could be possible to produce a line of mellifera that has a large cell size and a short emergence cycle or some other resistance/tolerance mechanism. Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.
JBJ

[merops_apiaster]

JBJ, perhaps that bee could be tha Apis Mellifera capensis (Southafrica), has a 3 days shorter emergency cicle. But, is that bee free of varroa?