March, 1911. 



American ^ae Journal 



to me we must select one chief character- 

 istic if we want to improve our bees in that 

 line. For instance, unless I am mistaken, 

 you selected first for honey-gathering, and 

 improved your bees in that line, but got 

 cross bees on account of sacrificing: every- 

 thing for honey-gathering abilities. So I be- 

 lieve I could have practically non-swarmers 

 today if I had put that trait first, regardless 

 of any others. 



But after you get your bees improved in 

 one trait, why not. without letting them ret- 

 rograde in that direction, select for another 

 desirable trait in addition ? E. S. Miles. 



I have more than once said that if I 

 had it to do over again I would breed 

 from pure Italian stock, the reason for 

 that being that by so doing I would 

 have better-natured bees. Mr. Miles 

 offers another reason for it that is well 

 worth considering. It is that a pure 

 breed is less given to variation, and so 

 likely to transmit the good qualities 

 desired. That is no doubt true. And 

 yet is not variation the very thing we 

 sometimes want ? If there were no va- 

 riation, would improvement be possi- 

 ble ? 



I am not a scientist, only a bee- 

 keeper, and in talking about such 

 things may easily get beyond my depth; 

 but I'd like the chance to ask some 

 questions with the privilege of having 

 them answered by a thorough scientist 

 who knows all about the matter of 

 breeding for imgrovement. With the 

 variations that come with hybrids, it so 

 happens that I have had among them 

 better storers than among pure stock. 

 Others have had the same experience; 

 notably J. E. Crane. But this superi- 

 ority is not so certainly bequeathed to 

 future generations as it is by pure 

 stock. It will take more effort to fix 

 the type with this variable stock than 

 with pure stock. Now the question I 

 want to ask is this: Admitting that it 

 is harder to hold hybrids to the mark 

 than pure stock, may it still not be pos- 

 sible that with the greater variation of 

 hybrids I may get stock enough better 

 so that the goal may be reached with 

 them sooner than with pure blood ? 



The interesting question as to whether 

 it is better to work for only one trait at 

 a time is one I would like to see an- 

 swered. On the face of it, it would 

 look as if the answer should be in the 

 affirmative. And yet I don't know. 

 Suppose we want to work for gentle- 

 ness and also for industry. We may 

 select the best workers to breed from, 

 and when we have a settled strain of 

 extra-storers breed the ill-temper out 

 of them. Or, we may select the best- 

 tempered stock, without paying any 

 attention to the crops gathered, and 

 after getting a strain with angelic tem- 

 pers, then pick for the best storers. 

 While working for one of these traits, 

 might it not be as well to pay at least a 

 little attention to the other? 



C. C. Miller. 



Loug-Tongrue Beec^ — and Other 

 Things 



On page 384 (1910), Mr. Byer asks 

 some questions that seem to be directed 

 to me, which I will try to answer, at 

 least in part. Indeed, some of them 

 practically covers the whole ground, 

 and I hardly need answer anything else. 

 Mr. Byer says : 



" One of the most essential parts of the 

 bees anatomy, no doubt of uniform size 

 nearly all down through the centuries, has 

 in the course of a few months by some mar- 



vellous, mysterious methods, been length- 

 ened so that their proud owners could go 

 poking into pastures that have been forbid- 

 den to their less fortunate predecessors for 

 ages past." 



Then comes the question : " Is not 

 the mere assumption of such a possi- 

 bility ridiculous, when we consider the 

 matter seriously ?" To that I answer 

 unhesitatingly that to me there does 

 not appear anything in the least ridic- 

 ulous about it. 



That answers the question, providing 

 my opinion may be taken in the matter, 

 but it would be just like you, Mr. Byer, 

 to insist on knowing why I should 

 have such an opinion. I'd just as soon 

 tell you as not. You say, " no doubt of 

 uniform size nearly all down through 

 the centuries." Don't you know that 

 able men who were entirely disinter- 

 ested have measured the tongues of 

 bees, and have told us that they are not 

 of one size ? But never mind that now. 



Ever do much with roses, Mr. Byer ? 

 Lots of fun in it. Perhaps you know 

 Jules Margottin, a hybrid remontant 

 rose that made no pretensions to grow- 

 ing to an unusual height. Well, one 

 day, not " in the course of a few 

 months," but in the course of not inany 

 days, " by some marvelous, mysterious " 

 force, a branch of one plant shot away 

 above its fellows, and presto ! there 

 was the climbing Jules Margottin, 

 which so competent an authority as H. 

 B. Ellwanger commends highly as a 

 pillar rose. 



There's Baroness Rothschild, a rose 

 of exquisite pink color. One year 

 when I had one of my biggest crops of 

 honey, G. Paul found on a Baroness 

 Rothschild a bloom that was pure 

 white, and since then you will find cat- 

 aloged White Baroness. 



Sports, of course. And I suppose I 

 need not tell you that there are sports 

 in the animal kingdom as well, although 

 it is no doubt harder to perpetuate a 

 sport in the animal world. Indeed, in 

 a sense there would be no such a thing 

 as iniproveinent in our domestic ani- 

 mals were there no variation from the 

 normal type, and that variation is what 

 we call sport, when it is sudden and 

 spontaneous. Indeed, you state the 

 case very nicely, when, admitting a dif- 

 ference in measurement of tongues, you 

 say, " I do believe most firmly that any- 

 thing out of the ordinary was in the 

 nature of a sport." To that you imme- 

 diately add, " and that in few if any 

 colonies was this characteristic per- 

 petuated." And in that view I am en- 

 tirely with you. After a few genera- 

 tions the characteristic faded out, or as 

 Editor Root insists, there was the 

 strong tendency to reversion to type, 

 although ke especially emphasizes it 

 when referring to non-swarming. That, 

 however, is a matter aside. It is not a 

 question, just now, of the perpetuation, 

 but of the possibility of such a varia- 

 tion as will allow one colony of bees 

 all at once to have tongues of unusual 

 length. 



And now, Mr. Byer, let me, in turn, 

 ask you a question. In view of pink 

 suddenly turning white, and of the 

 many changes that have occurred in 

 the animal kingdom, do you think, 

 when we consider the matter seriously, 

 that there is anything ridiculous in the 

 assumption of the possibility of finding 

 a colony of bees with tongues so long 



"that their proud owners could go 

 poking into pastures that have been 

 forbidden to their less fortunate prede- 

 cessors for ages past ?" And if a man 

 should find such a colony, do you think 

 there is anything wrong in his saying 

 so, whether he says it in private con- 

 versation or in an advertisement? And 

 if he should say it in an advertisement, 

 do you think you have a right to fling 

 " humbug " at him, or class him a Karo 

 man ? 



You say, "Not so very long ago the 

 bee-papers were full of advertisers who 

 claimed to have the genuine article, in 

 so far as long tongues are concerned, 

 and if it was the real thing they had, 

 why the absence of said advertisements 

 now ?" Simply because they don't 

 have them now. But that doesn't prove 

 they didn't have them formerly. Like 

 enough, too, when the bee-papers were 

 full of advertisers, there were some 

 who were not warranted in advertis- 

 ing, as is generally the case when any- 

 thing new comes up, but does that jus- 

 tify classing all advertisers as hum- 

 bugs ? 



You got of different breeders what 

 were claimed as extra-long tongues, 

 and you say, " so far as I could tell by 

 close observation, not one of the claims 

 was verified." Could you tell very 

 much about it by close observation ? 

 You say they worked on red clover, 

 and so did others. Are you ready to 

 take your solemn " aff ydavy " that there 

 were not 10 percent more of the long- 

 tonguers in proportion to their num- 

 bers ? Would you swear there were 

 not .50 percent more ? " So far as you 

 could tell." But how far could you tell? 

 Even suppose that there was not the 

 slightest difference, and that the men 

 you bought from were arrant scoun- 

 drels, does that leave it impossible that 

 there could be any honest advertiser ? 



Working backward I now come to 

 your first question. Shouldn't I "know 

 better than to try to stir up mischief" 

 in this way ? Just so far as concerns 

 long tongues, yes. It's not important 

 enough. There have been tongues of 

 unusual length, and will be again, and 

 if sufficient pains were taken I don't 

 see why it might not be made a perma- 

 nent characteristic. But I don't be- 

 lieve it's worth while so long as we can 

 more surely work at the other end and 

 change the clover. 



But there is involved another matter 

 of vast iinportance. It is the whole 

 matter of improvement in bees. I be- 

 lieve there are possibilities in that 

 direction that few have dreamed of. I 

 believe that every bee-keeper in the 

 land may do something in that direc- 

 tion. And when any man arises to 

 say, " Oh, you can't change anything in 

 bees; they've always swarmed and al- 

 ways will ; length of tongue is a fixed 

 quantity; and the man who thinks he 

 has stumbled on an improvement is a 

 humbug," I want to stir up mischief for 

 that man, and the better man he is the 

 more mischief I'd like to make for him. 

 So there now! C. C. M. 



Bee Journal Saved Her $25 



From following the instructive reading in 

 the American Bee Journal for the year iqio, 

 I have saved $25 on my bees. 



Mrs. a. a. Good. 



Arlington. Wash.. Dec. i?. loio. 



