Many people contend that bees are an injury to this crop, by taking away the substance that would be formed into grain. The best reasons for this opinion that I have obtained are these: "I believe it, and have thought so a long time." "It is reasonable if a portion of this plant is taken away by the bees, there must be a less quantity of material left for the formation of seed, &c." Most of us have learned that a person's opinion is not the strongest kind of proof, unless he can exhibit substantial reasons for it. Are the above reasons satisfactory? How are the facts? The flowers expand, and a set of vessels pour into the cup or nectary a minute portion of honey. I am not aware that any one contends that the plant has another set of vessels prepared to again absorb this honey and convert it into grain. But strong testimony proves very plainly that it never again enters the stalk or flower, but evaporates like water. We all know that animal matter when putrid will be dissolved into particles small enough to float in the atmosphere, too minute for the naked eye. When passing off in this way this real flesh and blood would escape notice perhaps altogether, and never be detected, were it not for the olfactories, which on some occasions notify us of its presence very forcibly. In passing a field of buckwheat in bloom, by the same means we are assured of the presence of honey in the air. Now what is the difference whether this honey passes off in the air, or is collected by the bees? If any difference, the advantage appears to be in favor of the bees getting it, for the reason that it thus answers another important end in the economy of nature, consistent with her provisions in ten thousand different ways of adapting means to ends. Most breeders of domestic animals are aware of the deteriorating qualities induced by in-and-in breeding; a change of breed is found necessary for perfection, &c. ARE NOT BEES AN ADVANTAGE TO VEGETATION?