278 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



May 2, 1901. 



they only reduced the size of the cells bj' narrowing them 

 down at the mouth. 



But even take it for granted that the bees will insist 

 on having some drone-comb. We have seen elsewhere that 

 the average number of drones produced, ranges, according 

 to some of the most experienced writers, from one-tenth to 

 one-thirtieth. If we can keep the average number of 

 drones produced by our poorest colonies at or below the 

 smallest percentage, and if we can at the same time keep 

 the drones reared by two or three of our best colonies at 

 the very highest possible number, we already will have 

 achieved a great deal towards securing improved matings 

 and a greater production of honey. 



Hancock Co., 111. 



Prof. Cook's Review of the "ABC" Book. 



BY EKXEST R. ROOT. 



IN the columns of the American Bee Journal Prof. Cook 

 has given a review of " Dadant's Langstroth " and 



" Cowan's Honey-Bee," and now follows with a review 

 of the "A B C of Bee-Culture." In his usual kindly man- 

 ner he says at the outset, ■' Without doubt this book has 

 exerted a wider influence upon the bee-keeping world than 

 any others ever written. Even its rivals can only be joy- 

 ous in its extensive sale, as they know that, wherever it 

 goes, it goes to help and bless." Coming as those words do 

 from one who is himself the author and publisher of a lead- 

 ing rival work, the publishers of the "ABC" would be 

 hardly human if they did not feel a warming of the heart 

 at their utterance. 



He then proceeds to point out passages in which he 

 thinks he has reason to believe there is error, altho admit- 

 ting the possibility that in some cases he may be wrong. 

 Some of these may properly deserve consideration and cor- 

 rection : in others there may be occasion to take exception 

 to Prof. Cook's exceptions. 



First, it is proper to call attention to the fact that the 

 criticisms are not based on the edition issued last January, 

 as one would suppose, but on the old edition — the one put 

 out nearly two years ago. As it is, much that Prof. Cook 

 criticises is not in the new book at all, such matter having 

 been re-written or stricken out altogether. 



As to the first error pointed out, there is no error in the 

 book, but the error consists in very careless reading on the 

 part of the reviewer — a carelessness that is hardly excusable, 

 for one expects extreme carefulness on the part of one who 

 points out the errors of others. The " A B C," page 2, in 

 discussing what is to be done with second swarms that 

 issue, says in effect that they must be watcht. climbed 

 after, and hived. This sentence is immediately followed 

 by another which says, "If one thinks this too much 

 trouble, he should prevent having after-swarms as I advise 

 under that head." He ignores the fact that the watching 

 and climbing refers only to swarms that have issued, to saj' 

 nothing of the fact that it would be an impossibility to pre- 

 vent the issuing of a swarm after the swarm has actually 

 issued. He goes on to give the Heddon as the best method 

 of preventing second swarms. In the edition just out of 

 the press the very next sentence refers to the place where, 

 among other methods of preventing after-swarms, the Hed- 

 don plan is given more fully and correctly than it is given 

 by the reviewer. If careless reading is inexcusable on the 

 part of a critic, still less is careless quotation when the ex- 

 act words are pretended to be given inside quotation-marks. 

 In answer to the question as to what shall be done with a 

 second swarm that has issued, the "ABC" says, " Can- 

 didly, I don't know of any better way than," etc. "Candidly, 

 I don't know any better way to prevent second swarms 

 than," etc., is the way Prof. Cook quotes it. We feel sure 

 that he will say there is no sufficient excuse for interjecting 

 the words " to prevent second swarms " in a direct quota- 

 tion wfiere thej' were neither written nor thought by the 

 author of the book. 



Prof. Cook objects to the statement that alfalfa honey 

 is probably superior in quality to any other. He claims to 

 be something of a judge of honey, and thinks alfalfa no 

 better than clover, linden, sage, and perhaps others. It is 

 a matter, not of judgment, but of taste. The best judge 

 might prefer a flavor that no one else would fancy. The 

 criticism, however, is a valid one. In matters which appeal 

 entirely to taste, it is unwise to make sweeping statements. 



Speaking of alfalfa the "ABC" says it takes about 

 three years to get it to its best yield. Prof. Cook makes 



the pleasant correction that in California the maximum 

 yield is often got the very first year in the later cuttings. 



The reviewer thinks it is putting it too strong to hint 

 that bees gather from the dry hay. The simple truth is 

 told that "one man reports so much sweet in it that he has 

 seen bees by the thousand working on the dry hay in the 

 spring." 



Speaking of this matter. Prof. Cook says, " This is put- 

 ting it altogether too strong. Still, I do not think that too 

 much can be said in favor of alfalfa, for it is a marvelous 

 crop." The good Professor will probably indulge in a quiet 

 smile when he sees these two sentences side by side : "You 

 are saying altogether too much for alfalfa," and " You can 

 not say too much for alfalfa." Which is one to believe ? 



Prof. Cook objects to the definition of digestion given 

 by the author, saying, "This is given as a question [what 

 can be meant by that ?], but he was not happy in his selec- 

 tion of authority." Not all will agree as to this, seeing 

 the authority selected was no less than the able and careful 

 T. W. Cowan. Prof. Cook teaches that "digestion is ren- 

 dering the food osmotic." 



Our reviewer says "malphygian " should be " malpig- 

 hian." So it is in the latest edition, and one would hardly 

 suppose an older edition should be the one reviewed. But 

 his correction needs further correction, neither the book 

 nor the critic being right, for "malpighian " should be 

 " Malpighian." 



The " A B C " says, "The blacks are also easier to 

 shake off combs in extracting time, and for that reason 

 alone some prefer them, or hybrids, to pure Italians, which 

 can hardly be shaken off." Prof. Cook says, "I have very 

 little trouble to fell at one shake every Italian bee from the 

 comb if the latter fully fills the frame." If Prof. Cook can 

 shake every bee from the frame at 07te shake, he will confer 

 a lasting favor on some of the veterans if he will make the 

 process known. In spite of their shaking off so easily, he 

 considers they stick tighter than the blacks, and prefers 

 them on that account, for the best men stick closest to their 

 homes. There are times when one wants bees to stick by 

 their comb, and then he will prefer the tighter grip of the 

 Italians ; but at times when one wants bees to shake ofl", as 

 in the case mentioned, will one not prefer that the bees he 

 is trying to shake off shall shake off rather than stick on ? 



Prof. Cook says, instead of Mr. Benton spending years 

 in India, he " was in India only a few days. " In relation 

 to this point I have a letter from Mr. Benton, who says, " I 

 left Cyprus for India in December, 1880 ; returned to Cyprus 

 in May of the following year — absent just Jive months." 

 While the statement in the "ABC" was not strictly cor- 

 rect. Prof. Cook is no nearer the truth, for he has gone 

 clear to the other extreme. 



He thinks it unfortunate that the"ABC"uses the 

 term "worm" and "grub" as synonymous with larva. 

 That criticism is worth considering, at least so far as to 

 avoid calling a bee a worm during its early life. Whether 

 much more than that could be accomplisht is questionable. 

 To his credit be it said that Prof. Cook is consistent in that 

 he does not speak of wax-worms, he calls them larv;e or 

 caterpillars. It is feared that, if a bee-keeper were to say 

 that caterpillars had eaten up his combs, he might be 

 laught at. It is very likely, too, that for many years to 

 come good scholars will saj' that wormy apples have worms 

 in them. Moreover, when no entomologists are around, an 

 insect-larva is a worm, for so the dictionary says. So is a 

 larva of any insect a grub, by the same authority. 



Instead of pollen and honey partially digested being fed 

 to larva^. Prof. Cook says it is pollen perfectly digested, 

 with or without the addition of honey. When doctors disa- 

 gree, who shall decide ? 



Prof. Cook objects to calling "viper's bugloss " blue 

 thistle. He says it belongs to the borage family, is no 

 thistle at all, and is like borage in being no serious pest — 

 all of which he should have noticed is already told in " A B 

 C." But blue thistle is one of its popular names, so given 

 in the dictionary. 



He thinks drones from laying-workers areas large as 

 any, and it is likely that is true when they are reared in 

 drone-cells. 



"It is very doubtful indeed that unimpregnated eggs 

 will ever produce workers," says the reviewer. It is not 

 said in " A B C " that they ever will. 



He thinks the word fecundate or impregnate should be 

 used rather than fertilize. According to the dictionary, 

 either is right. 



Referring to feeding at night, Prof. Cook says, " Our 

 author recommends this night work to prevent robbing." 

 If he will read carefully, he will see that it is not recom- 



