8o 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



chanj^e the plan. And, as to the other 

 faulty reasoning, I should be thankful to 

 have you point it out — if only to barely 

 mention it; for I have no mercy on my- 

 self for faults of that kind. 



At length you proceed to tell the 

 results of the experiment, and affirm 

 that it would have been nothing more 

 than fair for me "to have said, 'There is 

 no positive proof that during the first five 

 days any larvae more than three days old 

 were chosen, and there is positive proof 

 that 17 larvte under three days old were 

 chosen.' Possibly, however, this did not 

 occur to you." Don't you think you are 

 a little unreasonable in expecting me to 

 state thoughts in the same language you 

 would use, or would like me to use? I 

 stated it in other language, and set it 

 forth very definitely in the table. My 

 greatest struggle is to get much in little 

 space, and 1 expect my readers to take a 

 comprehensive view of my treatment of 

 a matter. This style, to which 1 am 

 apparently compelled, may be partly to 

 blame for my seeming to you curt and 

 unfair. Moreover, it possibly did not oc- 

 to you that this was not the point in issue; 

 indeed, it is rather an unimportant side- 

 issue; as it clears nothing up. The ma:n 

 point in discussion was your claim that 

 "If the combs with the cells be taken 

 within the first five days [of queenless- 

 ness] and put in the upper story of a col- 

 ony having a laying queen there will be 

 no too old larvie in the case." Since 

 you say what I ought to have said, I maj' 

 make free to point out that you have en- 

 tirely overlooked your main proposition. 

 You nuist still have some opinion about 

 it, and, for a brief discussion of it, 

 from your pen, we could well forego 

 arguments on the subsidiary and com- 

 paratively unimportant points. Perhaps 

 you meant to offer your telling the re- 

 sults already referred to as a substitute: if 

 so, it is well. 



Accept my thanks for your, I fear, too 

 high opinion of my abilities as an experi- 

 mentor. 



Lapeer, Mich., Feb. 22, 1900. 



^ Department of 



riticism 



CONDUCTED BY R. L. TAYLOR. 



The best critics are they 

 Who, with what they gainsay, 

 Offer another and better way. 



ESTIM.\TING THE AMOUNT OF STORES 



IN THE FALL, AND SUPPLYING 



ANY DEFICIENCY. 



For the sake of not losing a chance of 

 a quarrel with Doolittle, I refer to one 

 more item in last year's journals. ( Amer- 

 ican Bee Journal, 709. ) There Mr. Doo- 

 little, in an article on the preparation of 

 bees for winter, says: " To be sure that all 

 have the desired amount of stores, there 

 is only one certain way to do, and that is 

 to open the hives and take out each frame 

 and weigh it after having shaken the bees 

 off. Next weigh a frame of empty comb, 

 or several of them, so as to know the av- 

 erage weight, which, when deducted 

 from those in the hive, will give the 

 weight of honey, note being made in all 

 cases of the amount of pollen the combs 

 contain, their age etc., and the necessary 

 allowance being made accordingly. " 



Over against this plan he puts the one 

 which he condemns in this language: 

 " Not long ago I saw it advised to put 

 into an empty Itive the number of combs 

 used in wintering, and w-eigh the hive 

 so arranged, when the hives in the apiary 

 were to be weighed, the amount of the 

 other deducted, and, if there was 50 

 pounds left above this deduction, there 

 would be sufficient stores in that hive for 

 wintering on the summer stands, and if 

 there was 15 pounds it would do very 

 well for cellar wintering. " Then he pro- 

 ceeds to make upon this plan the follow- 

 ing comments: "No one could make 

 any mistake in calling such a method a 

 careless procedure. . . . Hives sub- 



