Apis mellifica (honey maker)?
OR:
Apis mellifera (honey bearer)?
Do Bees Really Make Honey?
Benton 1904: "For my own part I prefer the specific name mellifica,
believing, as I do, that bees do really make honey;" "….The carrying or
bearing is but incidental to the process of making the honey and securing
it for their stores." <end quote>
After receiving several inquiries concerning the mellifera / mellifica
conundrum that I submitted in Octobers ‘highly obscure bee trivia’
thread, I have decided to create a folder in the Historical Honeybee
Articles list dedicated to compiling articles and bibliography related to
this fascinating subject. I am currently seeking out of copyright
material pertaining to this topic. Please send to my private inbox, or
better yet, post them here to share with ALL, on this appropriately titled
thread.
Please find below, a beekeeping classic, beautifully written by the great
Benton, which he explains in a most eloquent way, Apis mellifera Linn, and
why such named.
Source:
Gleanings in Bee Culture, 1904 - Page 232
====Article Start====
SCIENTIFIC NAMES.
Rules Governing their Use and Application;
Apis Mellifera Linn, the Correct Term.
By Prof. Frank Benton.
In Gleanings, Vol. XXXII., No. 1, for
Jan. 1, 1904, the question is raised, on page
11, whether Apis mellifica or Apis mellifera
is the proper term to use as the scientific
name of the honey-bee. The editorial comment
is as follows:
Apis mellifica is the term used by Cowan and Cheshire
referring to the honey-bee, and by Prof. Comstock,
of Cornell, in a recent work on entomology.
The same term is also recognized by the great Century
Dictionary, the International, and the Standard.
The only authority that I have run across so far that
uses Apis mellifera in a late work is Prof. Cook. I can
not now find Benton's work: but my impression is he
uses Apis mellifica. Either is right, but the first is
more common.
As my own book (Bulletin No. 1, n. s.,
Division of Entomology, "The Honey Bee,")
was the first work on apiculture, so far as
I am aware, to use the term Apis mellifera,
I may be allowed to explain the matter.
Regular rules adopted by the international
zoological and botanical societies
govern the giving of scientific names
of animals and plants, and the retention of such
names. These rules relating to the names
of animals (including, of course, insects)
are known as the "Canons of Zoological
Nomenclature;" and all recognized authorities
in zoology conform in the main to these
rules, although in some of the minor points
there are differences of interpretation of the
rules themselves or of their application.
Those of the rules which pertain especially
to the case in hand read as follows:
XII. The law of priority begins to be operative at the
beginning of zoological nomenclature.
XIII. Zoological nomenclature begins at 1758, the
date of the tenth edition of Systema Naturae ot Linnaeus.
XIV. The adoption of a "statute of limitation" in
modification of the lex prioritatis is impracticable and
inadmissible.
XV. The law of priority is to be rigidly enforced in
respect to all generic specific, and subspecific names.
Whenever a worker in the field of zoological
science discovers a form of animal life
which differs in some essential particular
from all other known forms, and which,
therefore, can not be recognized by comparison
with any published description as a
certain genus or species, he is entitled to
give the new group a family name, a generic
name, or a specific name, as the case
may warrant. His own surname is always
attached, then, to the name of the group in
question as the original describer of the
group and the authority for the name. The
first specimen thus described is known as
the type specimen. Actual publication (putting
in print) of the name with such a
technical description of the object as will
enable others to recognize and determine
exactly the family, genus, and species of a
similar specimen, is the only proof which is
accepted of the right of the name to remain.
It is expected that a student of a given
group of plants or animals will familiarize
himself with all of the species that have
been described in that group, or at least
with all that are likely to come within his
range. But some specialists, less industrious
than others, do not take the time and
trouble to look up all of the described species
of a group. They simply name and
describe whatever seems new to them. Thus
the science is encumbered with synonyms
which, sooner or later, must give place to
the earlier-published names when some
careful investigator points out these. (See
Rule XV. above.)
Now, it happened that the great Swedish
naturalist, Linnaeus, described the honeybee
in 1761 under the name Apis mellifica,
and published this description. All down
through the years writers have used this
term, although some at different periods
endeavored to introduce a change. The
name mellifica prevailed, however, in the
main, although the modern rules for scientific
nomenclature were not formulated (or
at least not adopted) till the congress of botanists,
held in Paris in 1867; and their more
definite form now governing in this country
was not adopted until 1886. But in 1896 an
indefatigable worker in the field of insect
life, Prof. K. W. von Dalla Torre, of Austria,
published a catalog of the known Apida,
or bee family, this being Vol. X. of his
great work, "Catalogus Hymenoptorum."
Dr. von Dalla Torre had unearthed in an
old volume an earlier description of the
honey-bee than that published under the
name Apis mellifica by Linnaeus in 1761.
Oddly enough, the older name and description
were by Linnaeus himself in the tenth
edition of his Systema Naturea, 1758. Here
the name Apis mellifera was given.
Considering the vast field covered by
Linnaeus, and the great number of scientific
names which he bestowed upon plants
and animals in his work of bringing order
out of the existing chaos of scientific
nomenclature, it would not have been surprising
had he, three years later, overlooked
the fact that he had already named and
described the honey-bee. I do not know,
however, that any testimony bearing on
this point exists. What seems more likely
is that Linnaeus merely desired to change
the name because he had come to the
conclusion that mellifica, (honey maker) would
be more appropriate than mellifera (honey-
bearer). No law of zoologists interfered
then with such a change. It was merely a
question as to whether scientific writers
would adopt it or not.
But under the present rules of zoological
nomenclature which are quoted above, it is
plain that the name published in 1761 had
to give way for the earlier-published name,
mellifera. It is equally plain (Rules XII.
and XIII.) that no older synonym, even
though a hundred might be found, could
now or hereafter replace the name mellifera.
As a matter of fact, a dozen or more writers
(Aldrovandi, Moufet, Swammerdam,
Reaumur, etc.) had used the name mellifera
for the honey-bee before 1758; but
Rule XIII. bars the name of each and
every one of them from standing now as the
authority for the specific name mellifera.
It is further seen that the change from
mellifica to mellifera was not one adopted
arbitrarily nor at the whim of any person,
but that the present name is one which takes
its place as the result of the application of
rules now universally recognized — rules
which were adopted only after most careful
consideration and criticism by the foremost
biologists of the world. As such it must
and will be generally accepted whenever
known.
For my own part I prefer the specific
name mellifica, believing, as I do, that bees
do really make honey; for surely the product
when they have finished their work is
very different from the raw nectar carried
into the hives. The carrying or bearing is
but incidental to the process of making the
honey and securing it for their stores. However,
this is not a matter which is decided by
fashion, individual taste, nor precedent as
to present usage. The settled rule makes
it clear for all, and but one of the two
terms can be correct. Cowan and Cheshire,
cited by the editor of GLEANINGS, wrote
their works on apiculture before Dalla Torre
re pointed out the earlier name and
description. Prof. Comstock and the authors
of the terms in the dictionaries had not
happened to notice the change, or else they had
not looked into the reasons for it. A
comparison of the facts just mentioned, with
the laws of nemenclature quoted above,
shows that we have no other way than to
accept as valid the name Apis mellifera.
And actually we find that specialists in
hymenoptera, both in this country and in
Europe, who have occasion to mention the
honey-bee by its scientific name, use the
term mellifera and not mellifica.
After a careful examination of this subject
I adopted the scientific name mellifera
in the third edition of my "Manual," which
appeared in the early part of 1899, and a
brief statement of the reason was given by
me in the American Bee Journal for July
20, 1899, page 456, and also in the American
Bee keeper for July, 1899, page 128. A
year or so later Prof. A. J. Cook, when
revising his "Bee-keepers' Guide," for an
edition which appeared in 1900 or 1901,
wrote to this Department to learn our reasons
for the change in the scientific name
of the honey bee. The matter was referred
to me, and I gave a full explanation with
the references to the publications. This
information he made, later, the basis of an
extended article on the subject, which was
published in the American Bee Journal for
June 13, 1901, page 372. Prof. Cook also
adopted the name mellifera in the next edition
of his book.
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C. Jan. 22, 1904
====Article End====
Joe
Historical Honeybee Articles
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
