Their sting, as it appears to the naked eye, is but a tiny instrument of war; so small, indeed, that its wound would pass unheeded by all the larger animals, if it was not for the poison introduced at the same instant. It has been described as being "composed of three parts, a sheath and two darts. Both the darts are furnished with small points or barbs like a fishhook," that hold it when introduced into the flesh; the bee being compelled to leave it behind. DOES ITS LOSS PROVE FATAL? It is said "to the bee itself this mutilation proves fatal." This last is another assertion for fact, so often repeated, that perhaps we might as well admit it; seeing the difficulty we should have in disproving it. Only think of the impossibility of keeping our eye, for five minutes, on a bee that is flying about, after it has left its sting. Yet there are some persons so very particular about what they receive as facts, that they would require this very unreasonable thing of watching a bee till it died, before they could be _positively sure_ that the loss of its sting caused its death. (It is much easier to guess.) They might even take analogy, and say that other insects possess so little sensation that they have been known to recover after much more extensive mutilation--that beetles have lived for months under circumstances that would have instantly killed some of the higher animals--that spiders often reproduce a leg, even lobsters can replace a lost claw, &c. I have put off describing any protection against their attacks, because I wish to get up a little more courage in our doings among them. Yet it is folly to expect all will manage successfully without something for defence. MEANS OF PROTECTION.