78 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



comb next to the outside, and not another 

 cell in the hive, although I could see no 

 reason why they might not as well been 

 on the other combs." 



Other faulty reasoning I might men- 

 tion, but it is hardly worth while. As I 

 said in the article in Gleanings: "I know 

 very well that this is only a single case, 

 and that the next case might be different, 

 for 'bees never do anything invariably.' " 

 So it is well to let the matter rest till 

 next June, and by that.time possibly other 

 experiments may be made. Brother 

 Taylor, please stop throwing stones at my 

 imperfect attempt at experimenting, and 

 with 3'our well tested experience as an 

 experimenter submit the question to your 

 bees and see what they will say. I only 

 wish that Taylor the critic had the same 

 fairness I have always credited to Taylor 

 the experimenter. So long as the readers 

 of the Review had not before them the 

 article you were criticising, it seems to 

 me you should, in all fairness, have told 

 some things you did not tell. 



Let me tr}^ in a few words to tell the re- 

 sult of the experiment. In a great meas- 

 ure, data were not sufficiently exact to 

 know whether larvae for queen-cells were 

 chosen when more or less than three 

 days old. In the cases that could be de- 

 termined, none of them fell on the side of 

 being under the age limit. To be more 

 exact, it is shown that i6 cells on comb .c 

 and one on comb d were started over 

 larvte less than three days old. Seeing 

 your readers had not m}' article before 

 them, it would have been nothing more 

 than fair for you to have said, "There is 

 no po.sitive proof that during the first five 

 days any larva; more than three days old 

 was chosen, and there is positive proof 

 that 17 larvte under three days old were 

 chosen." Possibly, however, this did 

 not occur to j'ou. 



Turning to page 22, the editor mentions 

 a point that might have considerable 

 bearing, "the smoothness of the combs 

 and their age." I may say that so far as 

 I could judge the combs were alike, all 

 smooth, and of the same age. None of 



the cells were started on an edge or irreg- 

 ularity of a comb. 



In support of the theory, you say Mr. 

 Editor, "If bees are given larvae of ail 

 ages from which to rear queens, some of 

 these will be almost worthless." I don't 

 dispute that for a minute — have proved it 

 time and time again — not only "almost 

 worthless," but worse than worthless. 

 I've said so repeatedly, and not long ago 

 repeated it for your special benefit. 



Y-ou also say, "If they are given larvae 

 allofoneage, and that a suitable age, 

 all of the queens will be good queens. 

 If there is any one thing about queen- 

 rearing that I know, this is one of them." 

 Now let me say something that I also 

 knoiv. I have giv^en to queenless bees 

 "larvae all of one age, and that a suitable 

 age," and some of the resulting queens 

 were good and some were worthless. 



You say you are willing to consider a 

 more reasonable theory. I submit this: 

 Queenless bees, as a rule, prefer larvae un- 

 der three days old: when such are no 

 longer present they start fool -cells. 



Marengo, 111., FeVj. 19, 1900. 



[At last we have these two old veterans 

 engaged in the discussion of a practical 

 subject, but I wish 10 get this discussion 

 finished up as soon as possible, and, for 

 this reason, I sent proof of the above to 

 Mr. Taj'lor, who replied as follows. — Kd. 

 Review.] 



Friend Miller, I should have liked very 

 much to have been present with you to 

 assist in the experiment — I should have 

 had lots of fun with you. 



I trust your fear that I made some 

 statement calculated to discourage fur- 

 ther experiment in the matter is unfound- 

 ed. I made no claim of any positive 

 proof, even in the one case, much less as 

 a general rule; and I have a pretty clear 

 recollection that I made some suggestions 

 looking to further experiments in the 

 future. 



I am sorry you did not answer all the 

 questions I propounded on the "omitted 

 points." You mention some, but I think 

 not all — especially the one as to the 



