AprU 26, 1877. ] 



JOURNAL OP HOETICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



321 



So far in onr description it will be noticed that we have not 

 shown much dissemblaDce to the Angora or resemblance to the 

 Himalayan ; that, however, is to come. We have described the 

 Angora body as nearly as possible, and we may state en 2^assa>it 

 that the main difference between the two breeds that can be 

 seen is that the Siberian is a trifle the stonter and heavier, 

 and the Angora's wool the longer and finer of the two. "We 

 now come to the resemblance to the Himalayan. All who have 

 bred Himalayans know, and know to their cost sometimes, that 

 there are certain points which it is essential should be uni- 

 formly dark. Just so is it with the Siberian. At the lower 

 extremities of the ears, the upper extremity of the nose and 

 tail, and of the feet the long wool suddenly ceases, and in place 

 of it we see a very short black or brown fur ; this is exceedingly 

 short, and lies very close to the skin. These points that I have 

 mentioned — viz., nose, ears, feet, and tail should be as dark as 

 possible. Occasionally a specimen is met with, with these ex- 

 tremities jet black and of a shiny hue; this, however, far from 

 being the rule, is certainly the exception. A dark brown colour 

 ia by no means bad, but sometimes, and " sometimes " in this 

 case means often, the colour is very light brown; and some- 

 times, and *' sometimes " hardly means seldom now, it is a grey. 

 Especially is this the case with the feet. The head markings 

 generally present a pretty fair shade, and the tail is seldom 

 looked at; the feet, however, give sad trouble, and the schemes, 

 plans, and dodges that are resorted to with a view of making 

 these points dark are innumerable. We may devote a chapter 

 to the various contrivances in vogue for the purpose of accom- 

 plishing the desired object, but they are far too numerous and 

 lengthy to be given here. The two colours should form as 

 straight and regular a boundary as possible, and the effect of 

 the long white for drooping over the short and dark is very 

 handsome. lu fine, then, the Siberian, whether it be an ortho- 

 dox breed or the result of a cross, presents in its appearance the 

 points of two breeds, both of which are well known and valu- 

 able. The dark points of the Himalayan must be allied to the 

 long wool of the Angora to make the Siberian what it should 

 be. Any who may like to try the experiment may do so by 

 pairing the different varieties ; as may be expected, the product 

 will not be so fine in the wool as the Angora, nor so dark in the 

 points as the Himalayan. By careful breeding, however, and per- 

 severance some very good specimens may ultimately be obtained 

 by the cross, not, however, until the second or third generation. 



The Siberian Rabbit is fairly prolific. The litters will be 

 about the average, and the number produced quite sufiicient to 

 satisfy reasonable expectation. The doe is very solicitous about 

 the warmth of her offspring, and will make her neat unusually 

 thick, both of hay and wool. In order to facilitate her in the 

 former a good supply of dry hay should be given, and in order 

 to prevent her destroying her appearance she should not be 

 allowed to breed too often. If she has more than four or five 

 litters in the course of the year her beautiful pink breast will be 

 often seen nearly bare. 



In disposition the Siberian is very similar to the Angora, 

 although somewhat stronger and more determined. It, how- 

 ever, is certainly much quieter .and meeker than the hardy 

 Himalayan. Generally quiet, tame, docile, and attached to 

 their keepers is the description they fairly merit. 



As an article of commerce the Siberian is not perhaps so 

 valuable as many other varieties. The Angora, for instance, is 

 chiefly valuable for its fur and the Himalayan for its skin, that 

 of the former being clipped and that of the latter being used 

 after death. The result of the cross is not to improve it for 

 either purpose, as it is seldom that the fur is so delicate or fine 

 as in the pure breed ; still the breed is very handsome, and the 

 far frequently valuable. — Geta. 



FEEDING BEES. 



Let me remind young apiarians that feeding stocks is an im- 

 portant consideration at this time of the year. Bees are now 

 breeding fast, and brood requires much nourishment. Combs 

 filled with brood are heavy ; the creation of brood in hives during 

 unfavourable weather speedily exhausts their stores, and when 

 these are nearly exhausted in such weather the bees decline to 

 set eggs and their combs become empty of brood. Many hives 

 come thus to a state of bankruptcy and remain enfeebled for 

 months. Feeding in time or when necessary i^revents this 

 and keeps hives in a healthy prosperous condition. Bees should 

 never feel the touch of hunger, or be tempted to starve and 

 destroy their young. 



When breeding commences in spring bees are on the move 

 and require more food than they do during the quiet of winter. 

 A little artificial feeding in spring — even when hives have stores 

 enough — has a healthful stimulating iufluence on bees. The 

 weather in this neighbourhood has been uufavourable for out- 

 door work nntil the present time ; and during the last fortnight 

 wo have been giving our hives a very littlr' augar-and-water to 

 stimulate breeding. Though the bees are not at starvation point 

 in any of the hives, this artificial stimulus is doing them much 



good and exciting in hives the hum of prosperity. The expense 

 is but a trifle, and will be returned tenfold when fine weather 

 comes by the increased vigour of the bees. 



The mode of giving food to hives in spring is of little import- 

 ance; every bee-keeper has ways and instruments of his own. 

 One feeds at the top of his hives, another at the bottom; one 

 uses the bottle, another uses the trough. Some hives are made 

 for top-feeding, and some for bottom. We feed with tin troughs 

 from below, and, like other people who consider their mode the 

 best, we consider ours the perfection of simplicity and handiness. 



By gentle spring feeding is meant the supply of the daily food 

 of bees : none to be stored away for future use. In autumn it 

 is well to feed bees rapidly and aid them to store away enoagh 

 for winter use ; but in spring it is desirable to let the bees store 

 nothing up but pure honey. All artificial feeding should end as 

 soon as bees find food enoagh in flowers. — A. Pettigrew. 



DO BEES MAKE OR GATHER HONEY? 



The paper on this subject read before the Missouri Vale 

 Association, which was reproduced in your Journal of March 

 'JOth, is very interesting, and deals with the question of honey, 

 what it is, and how it is made, in a very intelligible way, as 

 far as it goes. I say " as far as it goes," for it by no means ex- 

 hausts the subject or satisfies the mind of the scientific inquirer. 



I have read the paper very carefully and attentively, and beg 

 to record here the result of my reflections on the facts and data 

 presented to us, presuming, of course, that the statements made 

 therein are facts of which there is no reason to doubt. 



Now, first, let me observe it does not appear that the nectar 

 inspected and the honey operated on were " made " in the one 

 case and gathered in the other at the same time of the year; 

 nor that the nectar taken from the flowers was compared with 

 the honey found in the stomachs of bees caught while foraging 

 among the same flowers that were examined. This is obviously 

 a most important matter, for we all know how wide is the dif- 

 ference between honey stored in May and that (call it nectar or 

 honey), which is gathered in July. If the honey and nectar ex- 

 amined and subjected to analysis were not gathered at the same 

 time and from the same flowers nothing is proven in the matter. 



Then, again, what does " field honey " mean ? This is a new 

 term which requires clear definition. It has no meaning for 

 me. Observe also the enormous proportion of water of which 

 the nectar is said to be composed — as much as 77 per cent. 

 Somehow this is got rid of, as the field honey analysed con- 

 tained only 8.0 per cent, of water. Doubtless it is evaporated 

 in the interior of the hive, and will go some way to explain the 

 difference between nectar (so called) and honey. But it by no 

 means explains all the difference, for the nectar of over thirty 

 species of plants of twenty-five different families, and which were 

 foun<l to be almost a constant composition, was very different 

 indeed from the field honey that was examined and analysed. 



I will reproduce here the compirison as given at page 244 of 

 this volume of the Journal of Horttcntfure. 



Nectar is composed of cane sugar (or saccharose) . , 33 

 „ „ aucrystallisabte sugar. . . . 10 



„ „ water 77 



Total .. .. 100 



Field honey— glucose 45.10 



„ oncrystallisable sugar (or mellose) 80.40 



„ ■water . . 8.50 



„ mannite 1.90 



„ waxy matter 0.60 



„ nitrogenous and acid matter . . 2.60 



Total .. .. 100.00 

 There ia some error, however, in both those calculations, as 

 the sum total is not 100, but only .SO. 40 in the latter, where 

 there has to be accounted for as much as 13 CO. The total of 

 the former is 120 — that is to say, an excess of 20 per cent. How 

 is this to be explained ? Anyhow there is a very marked and 

 noteworthy difference between the nectar and the honey re- 

 spectively analysed. Assuming (although it is by no means 

 clear), that the nectar and the honey analysed were gathered 

 from the same flowers and at the same period of the year, how 

 is this difference to be accounted for? Mr. Paul L. Viallon, 

 who supplies the paper read before the Missouri Valley Associ- 

 ation, jumps at once to the following decision : — " It is natural 

 to come to the conclusion that bees gather the nectar from the 

 flowers, and that this nectar in the bodies of bees, under the in- 

 fluence of agents not well recognised, undergoes a change and 

 comes out in a state of honey." To this conclusion I very 

 strongly demur. No doubt Mr. Pettigrew is well pleased at this 

 quasi-corroboration, as far as it goes, of his pet theory about 

 honey, although, be it observed, there is nothing said here about 

 " the swallowing and reswallowing " process and its presumed 

 results ; but this will not satisfy the inquiries of any scientific 

 mind. 



It may very possibly be that some chemical change takes 

 place in the body of the bee before the nectar gathered from 



