THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



343 



similar niethoil would be a great step in 

 advance. Even after government sta- 

 tions are in operation it would be a help 

 to continue this system as a check upon 

 and supplement to the others. 



rRoviDKN'CH, R. I., November 2, 1900. 



ATERAL COMMUNICATION 



IN SUPI-RS CAUSES A BET- 



y_yj TER FIIXIXG OF THE SEC- 



TIONS. BY LOUIS SCHOLL. 



It seems, judging from the various ar- 

 ticles that have appeared in the different 

 bee-journals, that many do not know 

 ?c'/((7/ causes the better filling of sections; 

 and while some of the great lights give 

 certain reasons, there are others, again, 

 that are oposed to them; and some that 

 even trot out their proof, resulting from 

 experiments made with the different 

 kinds. 



There are several who have done some- 

 thing in this line, but time and space pre- 

 vent me from mentioning all. 



Mr. F. L. Thompson is one who has 

 said much on this suljject, and has also 

 tested the worth of different kinds of sep- 

 arators and super arrangements, but he 

 has never given any. real cause of better 

 filled sections. 



In the Review of Jannary 1899, Mr. 

 Daggitt has an article, in regard to fences 

 and other perforated or open separators, 

 in which he says he has never looked 

 favorably on such separators; and that 

 the whole matter seemed to him like 

 this: If separators with openings through 

 them were better than closed separators, 

 then wire cloth separators would be still 

 better, for they would give more free 

 communication between the combs, and 

 no separators at all would be best of all, 

 for there would then be no obstructions 

 between the combs. He referred to the 

 Betsinger super with wire cloth separa- 

 tors and lull plain sections; and that he 

 has secured comb honey, both with and 



without separators, but never noticed 

 that the comb was any better attached to 

 the wood of the sections when secured 

 one way or the other. 



In conclusion he says that it is to be 

 hoped that we will be able to arrive at 

 the truth of these things in the near fu- 

 ture. 



In an editorial of the same number, 

 you say: "Some of us have thought that 

 the better filling of the sections secured 

 by the use of the plain sections and fence 

 separators was the result of the more free 

 communication afforded by the openings 

 in the separators;" and referring to Mr. 

 Daggitt's article, you quote, "if better 

 filled sections are the result of more free 

 communication, then the laying aside of 

 separators entirely, ought to result in the 

 best filled sections, but does it? "No: it 

 doesn't." Now I must say right here 

 that I think I am right in changing that 

 answer to, "JV'5.- it does.''' — provided the 

 sections are used without separators in 

 the right way. 



I honestly believe that free communi- 

 cation in and throughout the section-su- 

 per has more to do with the solid filling 

 of the sections; but it must be of the 

 right kind. 



Again, in the Extracted Department of 

 the April number of the Review, under 

 the heading of "Supply-dealing editors; 

 also something about plain sections;" 

 you say, among other things, regarding 

 this matter, that you are willing to admit, 

 and have admitted, your belief that the 

 use of plain sections and fence-separators 

 leads to a more perfect filling of the sec- 

 tions, and think that any one who is not 

 prejudiced will admit this upon seeing a 

 crop of honey thus produced; but think 

 there ought to be some further attempt to 

 discover exactly what it is that causes the 

 more perfect filling. 



After comparing sections whose side 

 edges extend out and meet the separator, 

 with the plain sections, where the cleats 

 of the fence extend out and meet the 

 plain section edge, one being exactly like 

 the other, there is no difference, and it 



