us 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Fkh. L 



unfertilized, so that those born of mothers that 

 have never mated (drone-breeders) are as per- 

 fectly developed and as fully virile as others. 

 Dwarf drones also, raised accidentally in work- 

 er-cells, or those from the eggs of so-called fer- 

 tile workers, or workers which, although in- 

 capable of impregnation, have yet commenced 

 ovipositing, seem not one whit behind the rest.'' 



It will be noticed, however, that, however 

 high these authorities, their views are not 

 based upon actual experiment, so that, although 

 we should be careful about reaching any op- 

 posite conclusion, it is certainly reasonable for 

 us to say that the case is not entirely closed. I 

 would give more for the results of a sufficient 

 number of experiments in the hands of careful 

 observers than for the theoretical views of all 

 thf scientists. 



Willie says, " I am perfectly satisfied that the 

 queen has the power to deposit eges without 

 having them come in contact with the semen, 

 or fluid deposited by the drone, and nil such 

 produce drones. I should be glad indeed to 

 have some of the old heads take this thing in 

 hand, say Doolittle or Prof. Cook, and see if T 

 am not right." Of course, you're right. Willie: 

 but. bless your heart, there's no need for any 

 one to take it in hand. That question was fully 

 settled before you were born. Look at the first 

 volume of the Ameriran Bee Journal. ISiU, and 

 you will see the matter fully discussed and set- 

 tled in the series of papers on the Dzierzon 

 theory. 



At present there is a large amount of theory 

 and a small amount of practice to settle the 

 value of abnormal drones. That being the case, 

 it can hardly be presumptuous to theorize a 

 little more right here. 



A w^orker is not a fully developed female; and 

 although there may be more development in a 

 laying worker than in an ordinary worker, still 

 there is not a full development of the organs 

 of reproduction, and on that account one would 

 hardly expect as good progeny as from a female 

 fully developed in all the parts that in any way 

 have to do with providing and furnishing a 

 vigorous offspring. The worker was never in- 

 tended for a mother in the first place, and one 

 would hardly expect her to be an unqualified 

 success in that direction. The experiment of 

 Willie Atchley, while in itself not conclusive, is 

 valuable in that it goes just so far toward es- 

 tablishing as a fact, that the ofTspring of laying 

 workei-s do not equal those of fully developed 

 queens. 



With regard to drones from unfecundated 

 queens. Willie has a rather cavalier fashion of 

 settling the question by manufacturing a defi- 

 nition to fit the case. An undeveloped drone, 

 says he, is a drone from any but a fertilized 

 queen. As we want a fully developed animal 

 for a sire, that at once settles the case, and 

 there is no need of any further experiment. 

 But is it fully established that a drone from an 



unimpregnated mother is not as fully developed^ 

 as one from an impregnated mother? The ar- 

 gument seems to be that the drone is undevelop- 

 ed because the mother is undeveloped, " as we 

 all know that a queen is not thoroughly de- 

 veloped till she is mated and begins to lay."" 

 Ihi we all know that? Is the fecundation of a 

 female a part of its development? Take two- 

 flocks of hens, the one flock fully devoioped in 

 every respect, and having a cock in the coop; 

 the other precisely the same, except that the 

 cock has been carefully excluded, would you 

 say there was any lack of development in the- 

 latter case? Is there no case of full develop- 

 ment among the thousands of mares that are 

 never used for breeding-purposes I 



Here's a choice tested queen fully developed. 

 How much did her fecundation contribute to- 

 her development ? Suppose her wings had been 

 clipped during her virginity. W^ould her de- 

 velopment have stopped ? Would she not have- 

 grown to the same size as now ? Would she not 

 have been the same in every respect as now, 

 with the single exception of an empty sper- 

 matheca? And in the case of the tested queen, 

 doe? that spermatheca have any thing whatever 

 to do with the eggs laid in drone-cells ? 



I don't know the answer to all these questions, 

 and I should want somewhat positive answers 

 before settling down to the belief that a queen- 

 can not be mother to a fully developed drone 

 just as well without as with fecundation. 



A point still to be noticed is, that a drone-lay- 

 ing queen, even if it should be fully proven that 

 she can raise the best of drones, in actual prac- 

 tice does not raise, or, rather, from her eegs^ 

 there are not raised, drones of normal size, 

 simply becau.se they are mostly raised in worker- 

 cells: and I think no one would be so well satis- 

 fied with drones below the normal size. 



On the whole T commend the decision reach- 

 ed, which is seconded by the ABC, to raise- 

 drones from only the best fecundated queens. 



Marengo, 111. 



LARGE AND SMALL HIVES. 



A fJOT.nKN .MEAN ; HOFFMAN FRAMES, ETC. 



By n. L. Jeffrey. 



Mr. Editor:— On page 9.53, 1894, T note your 

 editorial, "Large and Small Hives, Again."" 

 There, as in other places, you refer to the ten, 

 twelve, and sixteen frame hives. Now, just let 

 me tell you that you are not fresh or new in 

 that line of the number of frames; but before 

 going into the experience points I will refer you 

 back to Gleanings of twelve or thirteen years 

 ago — 1881 or 1882, perhaps 1883— as a proof of 

 what I am going to say, and I will quote from 

 memory, and let you look up the proof of the- 

 date; and yet in practice I can go back fifteen 

 or sixteen years. Twelve or thirteen years ago- 

 I wrote to A. I. Root from Washington, Ct., that 



