The chorus of praise is not however universal. Most noticeable is the broad divergence of views between the two greatest apiarians of Germany--Dr. Dzierzon and Baron von Berlepsch. The former pronounces this bee less given to stinging, less sensitive of cold, more prolific, earlier in brood-raising and swarming, forwarder also in comb-building, more industrious and honey-yielding, more courageous in defence of its stores, and prompter in expelling the drones. The Baron examines these and other assertions one by one, and declares emphatically that, after a long course of experience, he has not found them true in a single particular. He calls the bee "the Italian humbug," and sums up as follows: "While it may perhaps be distinguished from our own by a somewhat slighter disposition to sting, but, on the other hand, it begins building drone comb and raising numbers of drones in the first year, and its queens grow unfertile so early, and that mostly at so inopportune a time, it stands manifestly _inferior to our own_ in a relation of economic utility, and has therefore for us no practical value at all."[11] [Footnote 11: In our previous editions Von Berlepsch's views were cited as strongly _favourable_ to the Italian bee. The change is his own, and he now makes full recantation of his "error."] Though we are unshaken in our adhesion to the Italian bee by these opposite views, it is impossible to treat them as beneath consideration. They are not a mere prejudice, for the Baron was at first as much prepossessed in the strangers' favour as any one. But it would be still less possible to set aside on their account the united testimony of Dzierzon, Langstroth, and a host of others who are above delusion on such a point. How then can we account for this one notable divergence? In the first place, much of Von Berlepsch's data are negative only, and negative evidence can never set aside positive; thus when he tells us that he "has not observed" earlier activity or greater courage or less sensitiveness, while others of unquestioned judgment _have_ observed these points, we cannot hesitate to decide in the favour of the latter. As to less disposition to sting, the positive evidence should be on the Baron's side when he says that they _do_ sting; but in this case, as we have seen, he partly concedes the point. As to productiveness and fecundity, there may be some undetected peculiarity about this bee to which something in the Seebach apiary or neighbourhood is not so congenial as in other parts. At all events. Dr. Dzierzon is unmoved from his faith, for we find him in the present year giving as the result of twenty-five years experience that this bee is "as gentle, diligent, and prolific as it is beautiful;" that it "bears our German climate well, and that its preservation in purity is with some care quite possible."