1882 



GLEA:NmGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



605 



which in turn sprang up and produced a ffrove. The 

 movinif objects of creation came here for sustenance, 

 and here the birds found support for their nests. 

 By coniinff, they brought many different kinds of 

 forest seeds, and ere long a wide forest reigned 

 supreme instead of the barren waste. 



At the approach of man, the trees were hewn 

 down and shaped into beautiful and u'^eful dwelling- 

 houses, great cities, and many other things. Don't 

 you see how important it was that the oakling 

 should overcome the storms? It didn't amount to 

 much itself; but what followed did. The oak-tree 

 may be typical of the drone question. 



As friend Hujihes has raised a little "breeze" 

 (glad he didn't give us the whole storm at once) 

 which ruffled things up slightlj', some of us had bet- 

 ter see to it and straighten the matter up. 



He seems to object to the link in our chain of evi- 

 dence called circumstantial. Well, wo have the 

 other kind of evidence, if that will do. In the case 

 referred to by me in Nov. Gleanincjs, 1883, I saw 

 some of the drones crawl out of the cells, and ex- 

 amination proved the others to contain drones also. 

 I could not possibly have been mistaken, as the dif- 

 ference between drones and workers is so wide that 

 almost any one could tell them apart; and further 

 still, the drones were the specified timeof 3 or 4 days 

 longer in hatchin;a'. At the time of writing before, 

 I did not think of adding the above. 



If 5,,am not mistaken, all of the reports we have 

 had so far were of accidental cases. If we ever ex- 

 pect to establish this as an undisputed fact, to be re- 

 corded in our l>ee-books, we must, by experiment- 

 ing, find a plan that will produce drones every time. 

 As winter is here, we shall have to talk about what 

 we already know until spring, when every one in- 

 terested will have his eyes open, and the fun will 

 begin in earnest. I would suggest experimenting 

 early in the spring, before bees generally raise 

 drones— with queenless colonies. Be sure they have 

 plenty of pollen. A. L. Lindley, of Jordan, Ind., in- 

 forms me that he has had a case of "droneism" this 

 fall. The drones were reared in worker-cells from 

 larva:, and not eggs. Now we are ready to hear the 

 " more yet." 



Jordan, Ind., Nov. IG, 1882. Frank R. Koe. 



I don't understand your last observation, 

 friend R. Can any one tell, by looking at 

 the larv*, whether they will produce drones 

 or workers? If not, how could drones be 

 reared from larvae other than the ordinary 

 drone larva^V _ 



DKONES FROM WORKER EGGS, AGAIN. 



Since reading friend Tadlock's letter in No^•embe^ 

 Gleanings, I have again coucluded to give my ex- 

 perience in the drone theory. About two years ago 

 I boldly asserted, that the eggs from a fertile queen 

 would produce either drone, queen, or worker, at 

 the will and pleasure of the workers. This assertion 

 seemed to contradict so many able bee-masters' 

 theories that I was sorry I made the assertion, for 

 fear I should never be able to prove one word of it 

 true; and I do not know it to be true yet; but from 

 what I see, and what others are seeing of late, it 

 seems there is some chance for the truth of the 

 theory. I was so busy during June and July that 1 

 often hived full swarms on fdn., and did not even 

 look to see if they had a queen. In extracting I 

 found several hives queenless, and I went to a hive 

 I wanted to raise from, and took out a nice frame of 



brood in all stages, built out on worker fdn. I cut 

 this in three strips from top to bottom, and placed 

 in three hives. Two of thef^e hives had plenty of 

 drones; the other, none. Nice queen -cells were 

 built in each hive; and in the hive that had no 

 drones, a large lot of workpr-cells near the queen- 

 cells were changed and built out over drone brood, 

 and these cells hatched drones; in the other two 

 hives, not a drone-cell. Again, on the 12th of Oct. 

 last, I received a choice imported Cyprian queen 

 from D. A. Jones. As soon as she began laying nice- 

 ly (Oct. 18), I took out a frame of eggs, and put it 

 into a queenless hive, and cut a small strip from the 

 center, y^ inch wide and three inches long; along 

 this cut place, five queen-cells were built out; all on 

 one side of the comb, and not less than 25 cells were 

 enlarged and changed to drones on the same side as 

 the queen-cells, and nothing but worker brood on 

 the other side. Sa it does appear to me, that if the 

 workers can make a queen by simply changing the 

 feed, they can make a drone by the same process. I 

 never saw these changes, except in hives where there 

 were no drones. As has often been stated by others, 

 it may be possible that the workers remove the eggs 

 and lay eggs themselves. Is this one of the mysteries 

 of the hive yet to be fathomed? There is one thing 

 certain: The eggs from a laying worker or virgin 

 queen, produce nothing but drones, feed or no feed, 

 and this seems to put an end to my feed theory. 

 Help me out of this drone dilemma,*Bro Root, and 

 set me aright. B. F. Carroll. 



Dresden, Tex., Nov. 13, 1883. 



If I am not mistaken, friend Carroll, Mr. 

 Quinby once published the statement, years 

 ago, that it had been decided that the eggs 

 that produce drones, queens, and workers, 

 are one and the same thing ; but as he never 

 alluded to the matter afterward, I decided 

 his faith in it had afterward weakened. 



ii&: 



mr 



99 



Or Department lor tlio^c wlio doii't Sign 

 Tlieir Nauies. 



IJT' PRESUME most of our friends know, 

 Jl that when any goods we send out fail 

 ""' to reach our customers, we replace them 

 at our expense. Well, this is not a very 

 heavy tax, for goods we mail seldom go 

 astray ; but sometimes we have to suffer 

 when the goods did go to the proper address. 

 Here is a case tliat illustrates how such 

 things may come about : — 



I have waited some time to know how to dispose 

 of the $1.25 ABC sent, but not ordered. The one I 

 ordered, and sent at the time $1.00 for in stamps, 

 was received about a fortnight after the first. Some 

 of my kind (?) neighbors had got it at the P. O., and 

 had forgotten to deliver it sooner. If I can sell 

 either of the volumes, I will remit the $1.25 at once. 

 Please say if this will do. James W. Weir. 



Valley Spring, Tex., Oct. 21, 1882. 



I seems to me, friend W., if one of my 

 neighbors did a trick like that, I should feel 

 like paying for both books, and making a very 

 humble apology besides. The moral to this 

 little incident, however, is for us all to be 

 very careful in declaring a thing has never 

 reached our ottice. How do you know some 

 neighbor did not take it out of the office for 

 you, and forgot to deliver itV I wonder if 

 more of our troubles might not be explained 

 in some similar way. 



