THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



145 



as laid down in Advanced Bicic Cur-- 

 TURK, hence I am in a position to com- 

 pare the two systems, and I do not 

 hesitate a monient in recommending' 

 the more modern way of starting out- 



yards, keeping- more bees, and doing 

 business in a wholesale way. thus 

 cutting the cost of production to a 

 minimum. 



Remus, Mich., Feb. 19, 1906. 



Breeding @ff Be®©o 



E. F. PHILLIPS. 



TF one compares records made by 

 J- Italian colonies during the seventh 

 decade of the last century with the 

 average of today for the country at 

 large, it must be realized that there 

 has been little, if any, advancement. 

 There has doubtless been much im- 

 provement in hive appliances, extract- 

 ors, forage, and methods of manipula- 

 tion, but the place where there is the 

 greatest need for improvement is gen- 

 erally neglected by bee-keepers: this is 

 the improvement of the bees them- 

 selves. Manipulations and forage are 

 being discussed continually, but one 

 gets very little accurate information on 

 the improvement of bees. This does 

 not now refer to the introduction of new 

 races; tor, while that may be an ad- 

 vantage, it certainly will never equal 

 breeding work in importance. It is 

 not because this phase of the subject 

 has not been thought of by the writers 

 on apiculture, for there repeatedly ap- 

 pear articles in the bee-keeping jour- 

 nals on the need of careful selection 

 and the necessity of improvement, but 

 the trouble is in lack of knowledge of 

 breeding principles, and faulty methods 

 of manipulation of breeding stock on 

 the part of the honey-producers. 



It has been argued by several specu- 

 lators on the subject that Nature has 

 for centuries been carrying on a rigid 

 selection by weeding- out the weak and 



unproductive colonies in winter, and 

 that man cannot hope in a few years to 

 do what Nature h as not done in so long 

 a time. This may sound all right at 

 first hearing, but examination of the 

 argument may not be out of place. In 

 the first place, natural selection, 

 which is a potent factor in Nature, 

 whether we believe it is to be the 

 method by which species arise or not, 

 cannot do more than fit animals to 

 their natural environment. Artificial 

 selection, on the other hand, aims to 

 modify animals so that they are 

 adapted to the very artificial conditions 

 made by man, and, at the same time, 

 produce something of value to him. 

 Present methods of bee-keeping are, 

 of coi^.rse, very far removed from 

 "Nature's way" for bees to live, and 

 man wants bees which are not only 

 able to accommodate themselves to 

 these new conditions, but more than 

 that, a thing never asked for by natural 

 selection, he vi&nii surplus hotiey. How 

 much has the average output of surplus 

 per colony been increased during the 

 past forty-five years ? Natural selec- 

 tion at work for a million years would 

 not necessarily increase the surplus 

 hone}', for the reason that it is of no 

 use to the bees; but here man can step 

 in, and, by artificial means of both 

 manipulation and breeding, produce 

 what he wants, as breeders of many 



