372 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



June 13, 1901. 



I Contributed Articles. | 



Early or Late Requeening of Colonies. 



BY C. P. DADANT. 



MR. C. P. DADANT ;— In the American Bee Journal of Feb. H, 1 

 had an article, one paragraph of which related to the introduction 

 of queens in the fall. I said that I requeened one-fourth of my 

 apiarv last fall, and that most of the work was done in October, 

 pn<3 the early part of November. I also said that one reason why I liked 

 l.ido this work so late in the season was because the colonies were in 

 jilraost every instance broodless (the printer made me say " two deep *' 

 for broodlessi, and that because the bees had no means for starting 

 <l-ieen.cells I did not have to be so particular about the time of giving 

 the new queens. I had requeened some broodless colonies as late as 

 November in years before, and did not see but that they did as good 

 ^vork the following season as any other colonies in the yard. 



On the same page (10.: are given Dr. Mason's views regarding the bes* 

 time to requeen an apiary. He says that just as the honey-flow is clos- 

 ing up, and before it closes, is the best time to requeen an apiary, and 

 frives as a reason that the bees must have the vim and energy they have 

 when the honey-flow is on. 



Now, if 1 ara very much in error in preferring to do the work later in 

 the season, I would like to know it, and the reason why. 



I write this to request that you give your views and e.'fperiences on 

 the subject of the best time to requeen an apiary, in the columns of the 

 American Bee Journal. I want particularly to know what disadvan- 

 tages, if any, result from late requeening? Edwin Bevins. 



Perhaps I am hardly fit to pass an opinion. I will 

 frankly acknovpledge that I never did but once chaiitje 

 queens in any of my colonies late in the season, either 

 during or after the flow. I have always allowed the bees to 

 do their own "requeening," except in cases where the 

 queens were infertile or of impure blood. At the time 

 when we were breeding Italians for sale, this had quite an 

 importance. But since we have been keeping bees only for 

 honey, we have had less reluctance in allowing the impurely 

 mated queens to live, if they are prolific. My reasons for 

 not requeening an apiary, when the queens become old and 

 possibly near their decrepitude, date back a good many 

 years. I will have to tell you how this came about. 



The much lamented Mr. Quinby, about 1868 or 1870, 

 invented what was called the "queen-yard." It was a shal- 

 low square box, set in front of the alighting-board of each 

 hive, walled with tin about four inches high, and with a 

 tin edge projecting inward horizontally all around, to pre- 

 vent swarming. The queen's wings were clipped so that 

 she could not possibly jump over the walls of the queen- 

 yard, and as the tin projection prevented her from climb- 

 ing out, she was practically a prisoner in the front yard of 

 her own hive. This was securing the same result which is 

 now secured with the queen-trap, but with the greater con- 

 venience for the bees, of having nothing in the way of 

 their flight or of their free access to the hive for ventila- 

 tion, etc. The only objection was that the queen's wings 

 must all be clipped. 



We used this queen-yard largely, and it was owing to 

 this method of clipping queens' wings that we ascertained 

 how readily the bees would supersede their old queens with- 

 out the knowledge of the apiarist. Often, yes, in many 

 cases, we find that the clipped queen had been replaced by 

 a younger one, without our even suspecting the change. 

 And yet, at that time, we were very prone to examine the 

 hives from end to end on the slightest pretest. We spent 

 more time then on one hundred colonies than we would 

 think of spending on 400 to-day. But I must say that it 

 paid, in dollars and cents ; for the extra attention was 

 rewarded by extra results. 



The reader will now perceive why we did not practice 

 requeening. We found that in many instances we might 

 be destroying young queens which the bees had reared in 

 anticipation of the old age and failure of the mother. 



But requeening is certainly a very good method, if it 

 is not carried to extremes, for inferior stock may thus be 

 replaced by selected stock from the very best colonies. 

 Only I would not limit this to anj' particular moment, but 

 would do it whenever I had a stock of good queens to 

 spare. 



The methods pursued by Dr. Mason and Mr. Bevins, as 

 mentioned at the head of this article, both have their good 

 points. The only objection that I can find to that of Mr. 

 Bevins is the possibility of a shortage of drones, if we 

 wait till the season is nearly over. One time, years ago, 

 we had occasion to sell ten tested Italian queens after the 

 end of the harvest, some time late in October. We had no 



queens except in full colonies, but as the price was high, 

 we did not hesitate to remove that number, expecting the 

 colonies to rear young ones, and they did. But by the time 

 our queens were ready for fertilization the drones must 

 have been too scarce, although we had taken pains to keep 

 all we could in a few queenless colonies, for not one of our 

 young queens was fertilized, and the following spring we 

 had ten drone-lavers of the very best quality in ten of our 

 very best colonies. And, by the way, let me here remark 

 that this is a very good way to have early drones. We took 

 advantage of this to rear early queens, and they were all 

 purely mated before the impure drones hatched in our 

 neighborhood. The possibility of the queens failing to 

 mate seems to me to be the only really strong argument 

 against requeening an apiary late in the fall. 



There is perhaps another objection arising from the 

 difficulty of manipulating hives much in cool weather, and 

 when robber-bees are as alert as they generally are at that 

 season. But these objections fail to embarrass a practical 

 apiarist, because he will take his time, and use enough pre- 

 cautions to avoid disturbances. In out-apiaries, however, 

 where a man can give his personal supervision only at 

 times, I should not like to do much of this handling after 

 the honey crop has ended. 



I would suggest that the most economical plan to 

 requeen would be to rear queens more or less during the 

 entire season, and requeen as we go. If, however, we 

 choose to do it all at one time, I would hardly wait till all 

 the brood was hatched out, unless the season was particu- 

 larly favorable, and we could make sure of securing a suffi- 

 cient number of drones as late as desired. Since Mr. 

 Bevins has succeeded, it shows that the thing can be done, 

 and it has the advantage of not disturbing the bees during 

 the crop. If the queen is removed before the end of the 

 harvest the brood that hatches out will give room for honey 

 in the brood-chamber, and quite a portion of the crop may 

 be placed there, out of the reach of the apiarist, unless he 

 resorts to the extractor. Hancock Co., 111. 



Scientific Names— Nellifera Not Mellifica. 



BY PROF. A. J. COOK. 



WE have all become used to the name, Apis mellifica, 

 to designate the honey-bee. Some will wonder why 

 we change to " Apis mellifera." The specific name 

 in both cases comes from the root for honey, and either 

 would seem appropriate. Why, then, give up a name which 

 has been so long in use, for one no more apposite, and 

 which is an entire srtanger to us ? 



Our present method of naming animals and plants was 

 originated by the great Swede, Linna;us. It is called the 

 binomial system of nomenclature, as two names are always 

 used in designating plant or animal. Thus we have the 

 generic name and the specific name. In the honey-bee the 

 generic name is Apis. This is broader in its significance 

 than the specific name. We have Apis dorsata, the great 

 bee of India, as well as the ordinarj' honey-bee, of which, 

 as we well know, there are many races. 



The specific name, on the other hand, refers to only 

 one kind of bee. All the individuals of a species will be 

 very nearly alike. Where any species is placed under 

 varied conditions the individuals will tend to vary, and 

 thus we have what are known as races. In our domestic 

 animals, where man places them under such very dift'erent 

 circumstances, they will vary much more than they would 

 in nature, and so races are very common among our domes- 

 ticated animals. 



I think the races of our bees — Italians, German, or 

 black, etc. — were generally formed by nature alone. The 

 races will have habits and general peculiarities that are 

 mvich more similar than will the dift'erent species. I think, 

 too, they will be more apt to vary in their own characteris- 

 tics. Our dogs and horses are good illustrations of the 

 variations often seen in our domesticated animals. All 

 dogs are one species — Canis familiaris. Yet how diff'erent 

 are the poodle and the Saint Bernard, and how numerous 

 and how varied are all the intermediate breeds. Our 

 horses, likewise, are one species — Equus caballus. We all 

 know how wondrously dift'erent are the individuals of the 

 horse species. The Shetland pony and the Norman well 

 illustrate what a dift'erent environment with careful selec- 

 tion may do in modifying a species. The old idea that 

 only animals of the same species would interbreed was 

 found to be untrue. The mule — a cross between the don- 

 key and the horse — two obvious species — made it necessary 



