Though the following extract from the Journal of Horticulture is rather long, we give it place from the importance of the subject:

"In several localities I am acquainted with (one atGreenock, another in the Highlands), the beesan-nually, about the month of May, die in great numbers both out and inside the hive, on their return from the fields. They expire convulsively after the manner some animals die from strychnine poison. At both places Rhododendrons are plentiful, but although some attributed the fatal results to the honey collected from these shrubs, I never ventured an opinion. One gentleman at Greenock who has paid particular attention to this calamity for many years, tells me that he observed it occurred only during the east winds, about the time previously mentioned, and only when the wind blew directly over certain sugar refineries, but that at other seasons, when the wind blew in the same direction, the bees were not affected. How is this? Will the carbonic acid gas emitted at these works be more fatal to bee life during spring that at any other time? Is it a disease, or do certain flowers secrete honey that is poisonous?

" We have various accounts of people being poisoned with honey - to wit, the Grecian soldiers, and later, the fatal cases in America. It is of great importance to the bee-keepers of this country that this question should be thoroughly understood.. If the rumor spreads abroad that honey is sometimes poisonous, the public will cease to use it, and bee-keepers will find a difficulty in disposing of honey, however wholesome it may be. In the first place, then, is there any poisonous honey that bees will gather, and, if so, have the bees an immunity from certain poisons? If we believe that Rhododendrons or Azaleas yield poisonous honey,, and are the cause of the death of the bees aforementioned, then they have not an entire immunity from death through sipping the nectar, even although it goes no further than the stomach, as we see poison acting on fowls. In the case of the honey that poisoned the Grecian soldiers, the bees could not have been injured, neither at the gathering nor after, because if so, there would have been no honey stored. Whichever way we look at the evidence it is mysterious and conflicting. I can offer no solution whatever, but I suggest that it is possible that the poison may not be in the honey, but in the pollen.

While the Grecians were only intoxicated, the Americans were killed.

" We want evidence, however, whether the honey was eaten in a liquid state or direct from the comb. If the latter, then I think it probable that the poisonous effects may be traced to pollen, and that honey is safe at all times to be used when from it. Many people who never saw bees do not know honey from brood comb, and I saw some policemen at an exhibition eat brood and apparently relish it greatly. I only regretted that it was out of my power at the time to let them taste genuine honeycomb".

We call attention to the paragraph because it seems strange that experienced bee-keepers do not know that bees are short-lived. They live but a few months. All those that live over winter are all dead before mid-summer. They usually die in harness, and away from home. They may be found dead in large numbers under any flowering trees in the spring and early summer. We have seen them under the Wistaria, Yellow locust, and Catalpa, and others which we do not at this moment recall. If the poison honey would kill or injure men, it would also do the same with the bees feeding on it. It has always seemed to us strange how the idea of poison honey ever got weight. Nor is the matter mended by suggesting that a young bee would be any safer under poison bee-bread than poison honey. As for those Greeks, it is surely time everybody knew that the Rhododendron of the ancients was what we now know as the Oleander.

The " Americans killed " is news. We will venture to say to our English brethren that " poisoned " honey never killed an American. We have not even seen any statement that such an event occurred, and it surely would have had wide circulation in our own papers, had there been any serious basis of fact for such a story. The " poison honey " idea is growing very stale.

Apropos of your note on " Poisonous Honey " in the December Number of the Gardeners' Monthly, permit me to call your attention to some words of Mr. John Hunter on the taste and smell of bees, in his article on " Bees " in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, ninth edition, American reprint. He says (Vol. Ill, p. 421), " Their taste is perhaps the most imperfect of their senses. They use scarcely any discrimination in the collection of honey from different flowers. They are not repelled by the scent or flavor of such as are extremely offensive to our organs, and scruple not to derive supplies from such as are highly poisonous. In some districts in America it is well known that honey acquires in this way very deleterious properties. The qualities of honey are observed to vary much according to the particular situation from which it is obtained. In their selection of flowers they are guided by the quantity of honey they expect to meet with and in no respect by its quality. That gathered from ivy blossoms in England is sometimes so bitter and nauseous as to be useless for our eating although the bees consume it readily." Has this accusation against some honey of possessing "very deleterious properties" been disproved since the above was written? Rugby, Tenn.

We should be very glad for any positive information on the interesting points raised.

There is no question that honey varies in quality according to the flowers that furnish it. There is no honey more approved than that from some parts of North Carolina; and the opposite extreme would seem to be reached when the honey was obtained from ivy flowers. There must of course be something in the honey besides the sugar, that makes the difference. Why cannot chemical analysis tell us what this something is? or has it done so, and placed the result somewhere on record?

The main question is, is this something poisonous? To our mind it seems that that which would poison a man should poison a bee, and this is the chief reason why we have had doubts about any honey having much in it that can be regarded as poisonous. If there is really any poisonous substance in honey, we should prefer to have the statement from a chemist, than from the soldiers of Xenophon, who may have made little pigs of themselves when they came to a land flowing with it.