It is supposed, by many, that we already have all the knowledge that the subject of _bees_ affords. This is not surprising; a person that was never furnished with a full treatise, might arrive at such conclusions. Unless his own experience goes deeper, he can have no means of judging what is yet behind. In conversation relative to this work, with a person of considerable scientific attainments, he remarked, "You do not want to give the natural history of bees at all; that is already sufficiently understood." And how is it understood; as Huber gives it, or in accordance with some of our own writers? If we take Huber as a guide, we find many points recently contradicted. If we compare authors of our day, we find them contradicting each other. One recommends a peculiarly constructed hive, as just the thing adapted to their nature and instincts. If a single point is in accordance with their nature, he labors to twist all the others to his purpose, although it may involve a fundamental principle impossible to reconcile. Some one else succeeds in another point, and proceeds to recommend something altogether different. False and contradictory assertions are made either through ignorance, or interest. Interest may blind the judgment, and spurious history may deceive. It is folly to expect success in bee-keeping for any length of time, without a correct knowledge of their nature and instincts; and this we shall never obtain by the course hitherto pursued. As much of their labor is performed in the dark, and difficult to be observed, it has given rise to conjecture and false reasoning, leading to false conclusions. When _I_ say a thing _is so_, or say it is _not so_, what evidence has the reader that it is proved or demonstrated? _My_ mere assertions are not expected to be taken in preference to another's; of such proof, we have more than enough. Most people have not the time, patience, or ability, to set down quietly with close observation, and investigate the subject thoroughly. Hence it has been found easier to receive error for truth, than to make the exertion necessary to confute it; the more so, because there is no guide to direct the investigation. I shall, therefore, pursue a different course; and for every _assertion_ endeavor to give a test, that the reader may apply and satisfy himself, and trust to no one. As for theories, I shall try to keep them separate from facts, and offer such evidence as I have, either for or against them. If the reader has further proof that presents the matter in another light, of course he will exercise the right to a difference of opinion.