I am new to beekeeping. Langstroth was the only name I was aware of in recent history. But Jana Dzierzon is the gentleman on whose shoulders Langstroth stood as he created the improved moveable frame system that finally solved most of the problems of the past.
This article, however, is concerned not with Dzierzon's hive work but with his observations of the bee's life and anatomy.
Go read the Wikipedia page for an overview of Dzierzon and some nice photos!
The astonishing thing to think of now, given what we know now about Apis mellifera, is how Dzierzon's ideas were refuted!
The following article was published in Dadant & Sons, American publication The Bee Journal in 1861."These propositions, which embrace, substantially, the entire Dzierzon theory, are, in so far as they contain or propound anything novel, deduced from the personal observations and experiments of that celebrated apiarian. Several of them were warmly impugned by some of the ablest correspondents of the German Bienenzeitung (Bees Newspaper)."
 |
| Stamps honoring Jana Dzierzon. |
The Dzierzon Theory
We propose, on this occasion, to present to the reader, in the form of distinct propositions, the fundamental principles of Dzierzon's system of bee culture, as set forth by the Baron of Berlepsch, in his celebrated Apistical Letters; designing to furnish in the succeeding numbers of this Journal, a condensed statement of the facts and arguments by which these propositions are demonstrated.
We do this because, though that theory is frequently spoken of, and some of its leading features are probably known, no detailed account has hitherto been published in English. Yet, without an accurate and familiar acquaintance with it, the practice of bee culture cannot be conducted with the judgment and skill requisite to justify an expectation of successful results. The practical operations must be based on and adapted to the theory, which, hence, becomes a proper subject of study.
The propositions, as laid down by the Baron of Berlepsch, are as follows:
First. A colony of bees in its normal condition, consists of three characteristically different kinds
of individuals—the queen, workers, and (at certain periods) the drones.
Second. In the normal condition of a colony, the queen is the only perfect female present in the hive, and lays all the eggs found therein. These eggs are male and female. From the former proceed the drones; from the latter, if laid in narrow cells, proceed the workers or undeveloped females; and from them also, if laid in wider, acorn-shaped, and vertically suspended, so-called royal cells, lavishly supplied with a peculiar pabulum or jelly, proceed the queens.
Third. The queen possesses the ability to lay male or female eggs at pleasure, as the particular cells she is at any time supplying may require.
Fourth. In order to become qualified to lay both male and female eggs, the queen must be fecundated by a drone or male bee.
Fifth. The fecundation of the queen is always effected outside of the hive, in the open air, and while on the wing. Consequently, in order to become fully fertile, that is, capable of laying both male and female eggs, the queen must leave her hive at least once.
Sixth. In the act of copulation the genitalia of the drone enter the vulva of the queen, and the
drone simultaneously perishes.
Seventh. The fecundation of the queen, once accomplished, is efficacious during her life, or so
long as she remains healthy and vigorous; and she never afterwards leaves the hive, except when
issuing with a swarm.
Eignth. The ovary of the queen is not impregnated in copulation; but a small vesicle or sac situated near the termination of the oviduct, and communicating therewith, becomes charged with the semen of the drone.
Ninth. All eggs germinated in the ovary of the queen, tend to develop as males, and do develop
as such, unless impregnated by the male sperm while passing the mouth of the seminal sac or
spermatheca, when descending the oviduct. If they be thus impregnated in their downward passage (which impregnation the queen can effect or omit at pleasure) they develop as females.
Tenth. If a queen remains unfecundated, she ordinarily does not lay eggs. Still, exceptional cases do sometimes occur, and the eggs then laid produce drones only.
Eleventh. If, in consequence of superannuation, the contents of the spermatheca of a fecundated queen become exhausted; or if from enervation or accident, she lose the power of using the muscles connected with the spermatheca, so as to be unable to impregnate the passing egg, she will thenceforward lay drone eggs only.
Twelfth. As some unfecundated queens occasionally lay drone eggs, so also, in queenless colonies, no longer having the requisite means of rearing a queen, common workers are sometimes found, that lay eggs from which drones, and drones only, proceed. These workers are likewise unfecundated; and the eggs are uniformly laid by some individual bee, regarded more or less, by her companions as their queen.
Thirteenth. So long as a fertile queen is present in the hive, the bees do not tolerate a fertile worker. Nor do they tolerate one while cherishing a hope of being able to rear a queen. In rare instances, however, exceptional cases occur. Fertile workers are sometimes found in hives immediately after the death of the queen; and even in the presence of a young queen, so long as she has not herself become fertile. (Bee factoid: In a queenless hive, laying workers may appear, but they are not fertile.)
These propositions, which embrace, substantially, the entire Dzierzon theory, are, in so far as
they contain or propound anything novel, deduced from the personal observations and experiments
of that celebrated apiarian. Several of them were warmly impugned by some of the ablest
correspondents of the German Bienenzeitung.
But Dzierzon alone, for a season, and the Baron of Berlepsch, the Rev. Mr. Kleine, and others, subsequently defended them with equal astuteness and vigor—adducing unquestionable facts
in their support. The controversy was a very animated one; nor was opposition silenced till, by the introduction of the Italian bee, the means of conclusively determining the chief points at issue were furnished.
The evidence thus supplied was so clear and decisive, that all serious opposition ceased, and the truth of the positions was conceded by all intelligent apiarians. Naturalists and physiologists, however, continued to discredit and reject some parts of the theory, because they contravened so directly their own long-cherished views and opinions. But even they were ultimately constrained to yield to the evidence, when the facts as ascertained by Professors Leuckart and Von Siebold, no longer left room for cavil or doubt.
-----
These two photos appear to be the same apiary.
 |
| "Father Jan Dzierżon in his apiary. The breeding apiary in Maciejów is still active today". |
 |
| "Jan Dzierżon in the apiary in Łowkowice." Łowkowicewas his home town. |
No comments:
Post a Comment