Historical records—are honey bees native to the Americas?

It was the law in some parts of Europe to pay one tenth of all honey and wax to the Church or King. But many argued that no tythe was due by law for bees because they are Fera natura. (Laws of Tythes of Tything, 1676) The Tythe law stated ‘one tenth of all honey and wax from bees killed’ be tythed. The laws of tything served to encourage the humanity to bees movement in the late 17th century which promoted the taking of honey without killing the bees.

Best Wishes, Joe https://www.facebook.com/Historical.Honeybee.Articles/ https://www.facebook.com/Historical.Honeybee.Articles/

Origins of Apis Mellifica in America
By Benjamin Smith Barton
American Philosophical Society, 1793

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
Held at Philadelphia, for Promoting Useful Knowledge
Volume III

Page 241

An inquiry into the question, whether the Apis Mellifica,
or True Honey-Bee, is a native of America.
Read Feb. 1, 1792

So many animals and vegetables have been
introduced into the countries of America,
since the great discovery of Columbus, that naturalists
are frequently at a loss to determine, which species are
natives, and which are foreigners. This is particularly
the case with respect to plants. Many of those species
which are now distributed, in profusion, through,
extensive tracts of country; which are not merely confined
to the gardens, the meadows, the fields, and waste places,
but have even insinuated themselves into the thickest
forests and the most lofty mountains, growing luxuriantly
in their new situations, are, undoubtedly, European
and other colonies, which have been introduced either by
accident or by the hands of man. At some future day,
I shall communicate the result of my inquiries on this
subject to the Philosophical Society. Meanwhile, I shall
mention a few instances, which more readily occur to me.
The Plantago major, or Greater-Plantain, the Verbascum
Thapsus, or Great White-Mullein, the Chenopodium
album, or Common Wild-Orache, the Antirrhinum Linaria,
or Yellow Toad-Flax, the Hypericum perforatum, or common

Page 242

Common-Dandelion, and the Chrysanthemum Leucantbemum,
or Greater-Daisy, are, certainly foreigners, which
have extended the empire of their growth since the
discovery of the new-world, through they are generally
considered, both by the vulgar and by the more enlightened,
as truly indigenous to our country.

Within the term of three hundred years, many animals
originally not natives of this country have likewise
made their way into it. Thus, it may be doubted whether
the Rat, the Mouse, the Tinea, or Moth, so pernicious to
our clothes, the Flea, the Bed-Bug, and many others,
were known in the countries of America before the arrival
of the Europeans in this continent. It has lately been
asserted that the True Honey-bee, the Apis mellifica of
Linnasus, is not a native of America, and, I think, the
opinion is well founded, though it has recently been
controverted by the reverend Dr. Belknap, in a dissertation
which he has published on the subject. This dissertation
I have read with attention; but so far from weakening it
has strengthened the opinion that this species of Bee was
not found in the new-world before Columbus conducted
us to the knowledge of it.

The ingenious Mr. Jefferson seems to have given rise
to this inquiry. In his valuable work, entitled Notes on
the State of Virginia, this respectable author has the
following words. ” The honey-bee is not a native of our
continent. Marcgrave indeed mentions a species of
honey-bee in Brazil. But this has no sting, and is therefore

Page 243

different from the one we have, which resembles perfectly
that of Europe. The Indians concur with us in the
tradition that it was brought from Europe; but when, and
by whom, we know not. The bees have generally extended
themselves into the country, a little in advance of
the white settlers. The Indians therefore call them the
white man’s fly, and consider their approach as indicating
the approach of the settlements of the whites.”

Dr. Belknap admits that these facts, adduced by Mr.
Jefferson, are true; “but they will not”, says he, “warrant
his conclusion that the honey-bee, meaning the one
resembling that of Europe, is not a native of our
continent.” I shall examine the grounds of the doctor’s
objections.

On his return to Europe, after having discovered the
American islands, Guanahani, Cuba, Hispaniola, &c.
Columbus finding his ship endangered by a violent
storm, and fearing that the knowledge of those
countries to which he was conducting the nations of
Europe, was likely to perish, is said to have written an
account of his discovery on parchment, which he enclosed
in a cake of wax, and then committed the whole to the
sea, ” in hopes,” to use the words of Robertson, “that
some fortunate accident might preserve a deposit of so much
importance to the world.” This wax Columbus procured in
Hispaniola.

A naturalist cannot but be surprized to find Dr. Belknap
considering this story of the cake of wax as a proof
“that bees were known in the islands of the West-Indies,”
when they were discovered by Columbus, if by the word “bees”

Page 244

the doctor means, what I presume he does, the true
honey-bees. The genus apis, or bee, it should be
remembered, is very extensive. The learned entomologist
Fabricius, in his Species Insectorum, which was published
in 1781, has given us the names and discriminative
characters of eighty-two species. Of this number fifteen
are said to be natives of the two continents and islands of
America. There can be little doubt that there are many
more. Many of these bees, beside the apis mellifica, form
honey. We shall presently see, from Clavigero, that in
the country of Mexico, there are, at least, six species. Nor
is the bee the only infect which forms honey. Some species
of the genus vespa, or wasp, do the same, depositing
their stores in trees, in the earth, &c. Without, therefore,
something more particular concerning the wax which was
procured by Columbus in Hispaniola, we ought not to
conclude that it was the production of the honey-bee, and
with the lights which we have already received, we are
nearly authorized to affirm that it was not.

It is much more probable, that this wax was the fabric
of some other species of the bee. It is not impossible,
however, that it was the produce of a vegetable, since we
are acquainted with some plants which furnish large quantities
of wax : such is the Myrica cerifera which grows
very commonly in various parts of the new-world, as well
as in the southern countries, of Africa.

Dr. Belknap’s second argument seems to deserve more
attention. “The indefatigable Purchas,” says he, “gives
us an account of the revenues of the empire of Mexico,
before the arrival of the Spaniards, as described in its
annals ; which were pictures drawn on cotton cloth. Among
other articles he exhibits the figures of covered pots,
with two handles, which are said to be pots of “bees honey.”

Page 245

Of these pots, two hundred are depicted in one
tribute-roll, and one hundred in several others.”

The learned Abbe Clavigero confirms this account, in
his excellent History of Mexico, lately published. He
informs us that the Mexican kings received as a tributary
payment, a part of every useful production, both of nature
and art, and, among other articles of revenue, he mentions
six hundred cups of honey, which were annually paid
by the inhabitants of the southern parts of the empire of
Mexico.

In the first book of his work, which is devoted to the
natural history of the country, Clavigero mentions six
different species of honey-making bees, four of which are
said to be destitute of stings : one of the two others, he
says, “agrees with the common bee of Europe, not only
in size, shape and colour; but also in its disposition and
manners, and in the qualities of its honey and wax”.

In answer to these objections of Dr. Belknap, it is obvious
to remark, that as there are, at least, six distinct species
of honey-making bees in Mexico, five of which are
said, by Clavigero, to be different from the apis mellifica,
or true honey-bee of Europe, we are certainly not
warranted to conclude, that the honey which was paid in
tribute to the monarchs of Mexico, was the fabric of this
most important species of the family.

I will not deny that the true honey-bee is now found
in Mexico; not only because so respectable an author as
Clavigero has alerted that it is, or at least a bee agreeing
with it, but because we can hardly suppose that the Spaniards,
in the long period of more than two centuries and an
half, would have neglected to introduce an animal of

Page 246

so much importance. But it must be recollected that Clavigero
only informs us, that this true honey-bee is now
found in Mexico. He has not attempted to prove that it
was found there two or three hundred years ago. In order
to ascertain this point, with more certainty, it is necessary
to recur to the more early writers concerning America,
particularly Mexico. I am sorry that I have it not in my
power to consult the work of Hernandez, who was sent
to Mexico, at the expence of Philip the second, king of
Spain, and who devoted much time to the natural history
of the animals, vegetables, and minerals of that rich country.
This physician, however, does not appear to have
been a very accurate naturalist ; so that even though he may
have given an account of the bees of Mexico, it is more
than probable, that the information which we might
derive from him would not enable us to throw much light
on the subject. The only early author, in my possession,
who seems to give us any information on the question is
Joseph Acosta. This learned Jesuit, who has been styled,
by Father Feyho, the Pliny of America, resided for some
time in Mexico, in Peru, and in other parts of America,
towards the close of the sixteenth century. In his Historia
Natural y Moral de las Indias, which was published at
Madrid, in 1590, a few years after his return from Mexico,
he tells us that in the Indies, under which general name
he comprehends the countries of America, “there are few
swarmes of Bees, for that their honnie-combes are found
in trees, or under the ground, and not in hives as in
Castille. The honny combes,” he continues, “which
I have seene in the Province of Charcas which they
call Chiguanas, are of a grey colour, having little juyce,
and are more like unto sweete strawe, than to honey
combs. They say the Bees are little, like unto flies ; and

Page 247

that they swarme under the earth. The honey is sharp
and black, yet in some places there is better, and the combes
better fashioned, as in the province of Tucuman in Chille,
and in Carthagene.”

The buccaneer Lionel Wafer mentions bees among the
productions of the Isthmus of Darien ; but the information
which he has given us will not decide the question,
which I am examining. He supposes, that some of the
bees of this country are destitute of stings because he saw
the Indians put their naked arms into the nests, without
being stung. Wafer was in Darien in the year 1679.

The next argument employed by Dr. Belknap is
extremely feeble. He finds, in Purchas, that when
Ferdinand de Soto came with his army to Chiaha, which
was in July 1540, he found among the provisions of the
native Indians of that place, “a pot full of honie of bees.”
As there were no Europeans settled on the continent of
America at this time except in Mexico and in Peru, the
doctor seems to think this solitary pot of honey favours
his opinion, for immediately after he says “it is evident”
that honey-bees (meaning the true honey-bees) were found
as far to the northward as Florida, before the arrival of
the Europeans in the islands and on the continent of America.

Let us examine this argument. If the existence of the
true honey-bee in Florida as early as the year 1540, was
supported by nothing more than the pot of honey found
at the village of Chiaha, I think, the ground of argument is
very feeble indeed : for it no more follows that this honey
was the fabric of the apis mellifica than that the tributary
honey of the Mexicans was the production of that animal.

Page 248

But the following quotation renders it probable, that at
the period which I have just mentioned, the true honeybee
was not found in Florida. In a curious little work, entitled
A Relation of the invasion and conquest of Florida by the
Spaniards under the command of Fernando de Soto, which
was written by a Portuguese gentleman, who accompanied
the Spanish general in his “mad adventures'’ in
Florida, we are informed that the Indians of Chiaha “had
a great deal of Butter, or rather Sewet, in pots that run
like Oyl ; they said it was Bear’s grease : we found Walnut
Oyl there also, as clear as the Sewet, and of a very good taste,
with a pot of Honey, though before nor after we found
neither Bees nor Honey in all Florida.”

This simple relation of a fact is very pointed. Soto and
his successor Louis Moscosod, Alvarado had rambled over
an extensive tract of country from the end of May, or the
beginning of June, 1539 to July 1543. The granaries
and the store-houses of the unfortunate natives were
constantly ransacked by an army of needy Spaniards. The
troops passed through extensive forests, and yet they never
saw but one pot of honey, and no bees at all. If the
honey-bee had been a native of the countries which were
the scene of Soto’s villanies, the valuable products of this
little insect would have been more frequently met with,
and the bees, in territories pregnant with a profusion of
sweet-smelling and nectareous plants, would, doubtless,
have been seen very often, and in great numbers.

Thus far the. opinion of Mr. Jefferson seems to be
strongly supported by historical evidence ; and, I think,
we are warranted to assert that the true honey-bee was
not originally an indigenous animal of the southern parts
of the American continent. But this opinion may be
supported by other arguments.

Page 249

My friend the ingenious and accurate Mr. William Bartram
informs me, that when he was in the West-Florida, in the
year 1773, he was shown, as a curiosity, a bee-hive,
which, he was told, was the only one in the whole of
that extensive country. It had been introduced there from
England, when the English took possession of Pensacola,
in the year 1763. Mr Bartram, however, allows, that
the honey-bee is now found wild in the country of East-
Florida, where he says, it has been known for a considerable
time, perhaps an hundred years. But he is persuaded,
from his inquiries, that it is not a native of the
country. Mr. Le Page Du Pratz says “the bees of
Louisiana lodge in the earth, to secure their honey from
the ravages of the bears. Some few indeed,” he continues,
“build their combs in the trunks of trees, as in Europe ;
but by far the greatest number in the earth in the lofty
forests, where the bears seldom go.” The bees here spoken
of as lodging their honey in the earth, I am persuaded,
are not the true honey-bee, and Mr. Du Pratz’s idea that
they make choice of the earth to secure it from the bears
requires to be better supported. The honey would be as
secure from bears in the cavities of trees as it would in the
earth. I have had an opportunity of seeing many of these
honey-insects, which lodge their fabric in the earth. They
are not the apis mellifica, nor do they belong to this
family. They are more nearly allied to the vespa, or wasp-
tribe. The bears prove very destructive to their habitations,
devouring their honey, and killing great numbers of the
insects.

“As the circumstance of the bees” extending themselves
a little in advance of the white settlers,” it cannot,
says Dr. Belknap, “be considered as a conclusive argument
in favor of their having been first brought from Europe.

Page 250

It is well known,” he continues, “that where land is
cultivated, bees find a greater plenty of food than in the
forest. The blossoms of fruit trees, of grasses and grain,
particularly clover and buck wheat, afford them a rich and
plentiful repast ; and they are seen in vast numbers in our
fields and orchards at the seasons of those blossoms. They
therefore delight in the neighbourhood of “the while settlers,”
and are able to increase in numbers, as well as to
augment their quantity of stores, by availing themselves
of the labour of man. May it not be from this circumstance
that the Indians have given them the name of “the
white man’s fly;” and that they “consider their approach
(or frequent appearance) as indicating the approach of the
settlement of the whites.

I agree with Dr. Belknap, that the circumstance of the
bees “extending themselves a little in advance of the
white settlers,” is not “a conclusive argument” in favour
of the opinion, that these little insects are not natives, of
America. Still, however, in my opinion, the argument
has considerable weight.

It has just been observed that the Indians call the bee,
the white man’s fly. I have always considered this
circumstance as a strong argument in support of Mr. Jefferson’s
assertion, that this insect is not a native of America.
For notwithstanding the fewness of arts and the rude state
of the society of these people, they are by no means incurious
observers of the animals and vegetables of their country,
and they mark the progress of those which the whites
have introduced with the most accurate attention. Thus,
they call the Greater-Plantain by a name which signifies the
Englishman's foot, and say, that wherever an European has
walked, this plant grows in his foot-steps, meaning, by
this figurative mode of expressing themselves, that before

Page 251

The arrival of the Europeans in America, the Plantain was
not known in the country. In like manner, when the Indians
call the honey-bee the white-man’s fly, it is evident
that they mean to convey an idea, that this insect is not a
native of America, but that is has been introduced by the
Europeans. Whenever the southern Indians see the
honey-bee in the woods, they immediately conclude that
the whites will soon follow.

Although Dr. Belknap believes that the honey-bee is
a native of Mexico, and of the islands, and that it had
extended itself as far to the northward as Florida and Georgia,
yet he admits that this insect was not found in the
more northern regions of America, previously to their
discovery by the Europeans. “The first European Settlement
in Virgina”, he observes, “was made about seventy years
after the expedition of Soto, in Florida, and the first
settlement in New-England, as ten years posterior to that
in Virginia. The large intermediate country was uncultivated
for a long time afterward. The southern bees therefore
could have no inducement to extend themselves very
far to the northward, for many years after the settlements
were begun; and within that time bees were imported
from Europe.”

That the honey-bee is not a native of the northern parts
of America is, I think, incontestably proved by a variety
of circumstances. These I shall consider under the two
heads of negative and positive evidences.

Lawson does not mention this insect among the native
animals of Carolina.

The founder of Pennsylvania, in a long and interesting
letter which he wrote to his friends, in the year 1683,
takes no notice of bees. It is evident to any one who has

Page 252

has read this letter, that the great object which its author
had in view, was to exhibit a flattering picture of the
Province, with the design of enticing emigrants to make
settlements in it. An insect whose products are so valuable
as those of the bee would not, I think, have been
omitted in the list of animals indigenous to the country of
Pennsylvania, if Mr. Penn had had any certain intimations
of its existence there. Neither do I find the bee
mentioned by any of the early Swedish writers who published
accounts of Pennsylvania.

I do not find that any of the writers on Virginia mention
the honey-bee among the indigenous animals of the
country, The little that Mr. Beverley has said on the subject,
in his History of Virginia, rather authorises the supposition
that this author did not consider the honey-bee
as a native. ” Bees, says he, thrive there abundantly,
and will very easily yield to the careful Housewife a full
Hive of Honey, and besides lay up a Winter-store, sufficient
to preserve their Stocks”.

Dr. Belknap says, that in the languages of the Indians
of New-England, there are no words for either honey or
wax. Accordingly, when Mr. John Elliot, who was called
the Indian Evangelist, undertook the arduous task of
translating the Bible into the Natic-language, wherever
these two words occurred, as they frequently do in the
scriptures, he used the English words, though sometimes,
indeed, with an Indian termination.

I consider this circumstance as a strong argument in
favour of our common opinion, that the honey-bee is not
a native of New-England. At the same time, however,
I cannot help observing that as Mr. Elliot confined himself
in the translation, which I have , mentioned, to the

Page 253

language spoken by the Natic-Indians, who used a dialect
of the Mohegan, it does not follow, that none of the
New-England nations had words in their languages for
honey and wax. Since our intercourse with the Indians,
their languages have become much more copious. As
new objects, both of nature and of art, occurred, new
words were formed. Thus, in the vocabulary of the
Delaware-Indians, we find the words gok, la pe chi can, poak
sa can, wi fach gank, chey i nu tey, all which have most probably
been introduced into their language since their intercourse
with the Europeans; for these words which I have
mentioned, and it would be easy to mention many more,
signify money, a plough, a gun, rum, saddle-bag : now
we well know that before our acquaintance with these
people they had neither money, ploughs, guns, rum,
or saddle-bags, among them. The Indians do not continue
long acquainted with new objects, without giving
names to them. As, therefore, the Natics had no words for
honey and wax, it is highly probable, that about the year
1648, when Mr. Elliot was employed in translating the
Bible, the honey-bee had not been introduced into that
part of New-England which these Indians inhabited.

The Delaware-Indians call bees a mo e wak. Wasps
are likewise, known by this name among these Indians.
Several species of wasps are natives of our country : it
seems very probable, therefore, that when the honey-bees
were first introduced among them, the Delawares to save the
trouble of inventing a new word for these little animals,
thought the name by which they were accustomed to call
the wasp sufficiently applicable to the bees; between which

Page 254

and some species of wasps the resemblance is so great.
Instances of this trouble-saving disposition of the Indians
are numerous. The Cheerake, for instance, call a prisoner,
or captive, or slave, eeankke, and they apply the same
name to a pin, and an awl. It is difficult to say, what
secret connection there is between a captive and a pin, or an
awl. These same Indians call the penis wato bre, and
a corn-house is known by the same name among them. In
this instance, the use of only one word for two such
opposite objects is more easily accounted for. Savages
always think and speak metaphorically. They could not
but reflect that whilst a corn-house is a deposit of the food
of men, the penis is the organ by which the eternity of
the human species is maintained.

I do not find the words honey or wax in the copious
language of the Delaware-Indians*. If this tribe have
not words for these substances, my opinion, that the honey
bee is not a native of America, receives considerable
additional support.

The Muhhekaneew, commonly known by the name
of the Mohegans, speak a language very closely allied to
that of the Delawares, as I shall fully demonstrate in my
Comparative view of the languages of the American nations
with each other, and with the languages of the nations of
the north-east parts of Asia. In the language of the Mohegans,
the honey-bee is called aum waw, honey aum
waw weh socat, and bees-wax aum waw weh pe mey.
Perhaps, it will be imagined, that the existence of these
words in the Mohegan language is a proof that the bee is
a native of their country. My opinion, however, is quite
different, and, I think, it rests upon an unerring foundation.

In the first place, the resemblance between the Delaware
and Mohegan words for the honey-bee is obvious.

Page 255

I have already observed that the first of these nations call
bees and wasps by the same name. It is probable that
this is also the case among the Mohegans. If so, it
would seem likely, that from the resemblance between the
bee and some species of our native wasps, it was not
thought necessary to impose a new name upon the honeybee
after it became a denizen of our woods. But this, it
will be said, is treading on the ground of hypothesis. I
shall, therefore, relinquish it.

The Mohegans, I have just said, call honey aum waw
weh socat. This is, undoubtedly, an Indian word. But
let us analyse its precise, specific signification. The real
meaning of the word socat is sugar, or sweet. Long before
the nations of America had any intercourse with the
Europeans, they made sugar from the Acer saccharinum, or
Sugar-maple, and from some species of the genus Juglans, or
Walnut. An appropriate word for this agreeable substance,
of course, existed in their languages. When the honey
of the bee was first examined by them, they could not
fail to remark that its most striking property was its sweet
taste. An assemblage of words was now formed for the
newly-introduced substance. This assemblage, in the
Mohegan tongue, reads thus, sweet or sugar of bee, for
the word weh signifies of. In like manner, the real meaning
of pe mey is grease, fat, or tallow. All these are substances
with which savages are but too familiar. When the Mohegans
became acquainted with the wax of the bee, observing
its resemblance to the different substances just mentioned,
they seem to have thought it unnecessary to create
a new word exclusively characteristic of it. The strict
meaning of the word aum waw weh pe mey is grease, fat,
or tallow, of bee.

I am confirmed in my opinions on this part of my
question by finding that the Natics, or Nahantics, had no

Page 256

words in their language for honey or wax*. For, as I have
already observed, these Indians and the Mohegans spake
dialects of the same language. It is not probable, therefore,
that one of the tribes would have these words and
the other not, when we consider that ever since our
acquaintance with them they have lived at no great distance from
each other. And we have known them for more than one
hundred and fifty years.

These are the principal negative evidences which I am
able to adduce in support of my opinion, that the honeybee
is not an indigenous animal in the northern countries
of the new-world. I call them negative evidences,
because to most persons, I presume, they will not appear
to be more. In my opinion, however, some of them run
closely into the evidences of the possitive kind.

The possitive evidences and circumstances which support
my opinion, are numerous. I shall confine myself to
the chiesest of them.

Mr. John Josselyn, who was in New-England, for the
first time, in the year 1638, and afterwards in 1663, and
who wrote an account of his voyages, together with some
very imperfect sketches of natural history in 1673, speaks
of the honey-bee in the following words : ” The honey-bees
are carried over by the English, and thrive there exceedingly.”

Dr. Belknap says, ” there is a tradition in New-England,
that the person who first brought a hive of bees
into the country was rewarded with a grant of land ; but
the person’s name, or the place where the land lay, or by
whom the grant was made, I have not been able to learn.”

Page 257

Perhaps, it will be said that these two circumstances by no
means prove that the honey-bee was not a native of the
countries of New-England. They only prove, it may be
urged, that this little insect was not known to be a native
of those countries.

They do not absolutely prove much more. But, on the
one hand, I think it is highly improbable that the people
of New-England would have been at the trouble of
importing bees from Europe, if they were natives of
the country; and, on the other hand, it is certainly not likely
that a person would have received a grant of land, as Dr.
Belknap has mentioned was the case, according to tradition,
if the bees were already in the country. Had they
been there, their existence could not but have been well
known, unless we suppose that among them, as certain
European writers have said of the aboriginal Americans,
the principle of social union was extremely weak; so that
these little insects, whose government has, for ages, excited
the admiration of philosophers, may have been scattered,
like the savages, in small families through vast tracts of
uncultivated country, and not associated in large, civilized
communities. It has been so much the rage to speculate
falsely on the subject of America, that I should not be
surprised to find such a writer as De Pauw, assigning a
weakness of their political union as the reason why honey-bees
were not discovered in the new-world. Raynal would,
probably, reason thus likewise, had not this fine writer
believed that there is something in the climate of America,
that is unfavourable to the generation of good things.
Ye philosophers of Europe! come visit our countries.

The Reverend Mr. Heckewelder informs me, that although
he has seen the true honey-bees wild in various parts of
the United-States, at some distance from the settlements
of the whites, he has always been assured by the Indians,

Page 258

that these insects were not known in these countries before
the whites began to settle them. This alone is a very
heavy load of evidence in support of my opinion on
the subject. The Indians, as I have already remarked are
by no means incurious observers. Is it probable, therefore,
that they should be mistaken on the subject, especially when
it is remarked that they are, in general, extremely fond
and voracious of honey?. The bears are not more so.

The honey-bee was not found in Kentuckey, when we
first became acquainted with that fine country. But about
the year 1780, a hive was brought, by a Colonel Herrod,
to the Rapids of the Ohio, since which time these little
insects have encreased prodigiously. Not long since, a hunter
found thirty wild swarms in the course of one day*.

Honey-bees were not known in that part of the state of
New-York which is called the Jenesse-Country, when it
was first visited, nor even for a considerable time after.
Of late, a few hives have been introduced, and these will,
doubtless, soon extend, themselves through the country; for
there are always some discontented bees, which may be called
deserters from the hive or colony; which roam in search of
flowers in the woods, and seem to prefer as an habitation,
the cavity of a tree to the artificial hive, in common use.

These deserters are, I think, peculiarly disposed to spread
themselves along the courses of the creeks and rivers of,
our country, because the sides of these waters are frequently

Page 259

decorated with fine, rich, low grounds, commonly called
bottoms, abounding in a variety of plants, which are
agreeable to the bees, such as the Polygonum scandens, or
Wild-buckwheat, and many others. So great is the attachment
of the honey-bees to these situations, that sometimes
they form a file, for a considerable distance, along a creek,
or river, quaffing the nectar of the plants, but not venturing
to extend themselves far from these agreeable situations.

The following quotation, from the Abbe Raynal’s
Philosophical and Political History of the settlements and trade
of the Europeans in both the Indies, shall conclude what
I have to say in support of my opinion, that the honeybee
is not an indigenous animal of the American continents.
“North America.” says this elegant writer, “was
formerly devoured by insects. As the air was not then
purified, the ground cleared, the woods cut down, nor
the waters drained off, these little animals destroyed,
without opposition, all the productions of nature. None of
them were useful to mankind*. There is only one at present,
which is the bee ; but this is supposed to have been
carried from the old to the new world. The savages call
it the English fly ; and it is only found near the coasts.
These circumstances announce it to be of foreign original.
The bees fly in numerous swarms through the forests
of the new world. Their numbers are continually increasing,
and their honey, which is converted to several uses,
supplies many persons with food. Their wax becomes
daily a considerable branch of trade .”

Page 260

It appears, then, that the apis mellifica, or true honey-bee
is not a native of America, but that we are indebted to
Europe for this useful insect. It is difficult to tell at what
time this species of bee was introduced into the different
countries of America, I think it probable, however, that,
in general, the emigrant-settlers would turn their attention
to the honey-bee soon after they found themselves pretty
well established in their new and happy territories.

I have already observed, that William Penn has made
no mention of bees in his account of the natural productions
of Pennsylvania*. It is probable, therefore, that in the
year 1683, when he wrote the letter, which I have
mentioned, these insects had not been introduced into the
Province. But their introduction does not appear to have
been long subsequent to this period; for one Gabriel
Thomas, a Quaker-preacher, who resided in Pennsylvania,
for about fifteen years, viz. from 1681 to 1696, speaks
of them in the following words : “Bees thrive and multiply
exceedingly in those parts, the Sweeds often get great
store of them in the woods, where they are free from any
Body. Honey (and choice too) is sold in the Capital City
for Five Pence per Pound. Wax, is also plentiful, cheap,
and a considerable Commerce.” The same author in his
historical description of the province and country of
West-New-Jersey, says this province is “well provided”
with bees.

Perhaps, it will be thought that I have devoted more
time to this inquiry than the subject merited. I will allow,
that the question is not of much consequence to mankind,
at large ; but to a society of philosophers, every elucidation
of a disputed point in natural history cannot but be,

Page 261

in some degree, interesting. If any farther apology should
be thought necessary for my troubling you, gentlemen,
with my sentiments on this question, I beg leave to
remind you, that in almost every cultivated age and country,
philosophers have thought that they were not altogether
uselessly employed in collecting materials for the
natural history of an animal so interesting to mankind as
the BEE.

Benjamin Smith Barton.