1896 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



333 



clearly, Bro. Taylor wrote without thought 

 when he ^associated with footnotes the idea 

 that necessarily they would have less thought 

 or care when attached to an article than when 

 put on a different page. I don't need to elab- 

 orate the idea— he'll admit it just as soon as he 

 gives it thought. You just keep on making 

 editorial comments; we all like to read them, 

 but by all means put them where they connect 

 most closely with what you're talking about. 



Returning to what Mr. Bolton said on page 

 451, 1 don't really suppose he meant to say that, 

 if a colony was inverted once in nine days, 

 there would be no possibility of swarming. 

 But that was probably understood by a good 

 many. I'm not sure that I can clearly answer 

 the questions of my California correspondent. 

 I don't know just what Mr. Bolton means by 

 an "embryo queen." If he means up to the 

 time the young queen emerges from the cell, 

 then his statement quoted can hardly mean any 

 thing less than that inverting every nine days 

 is all that's necessary without ever looking into 

 a hive. But if he calls them embryo up to the 

 time they are sealed, then he may mean that 

 only unsealed cells are destroyed by inversion. 

 Nine days is long enough time for fresh cells to 

 be started and advanced to sealing; and if he 

 finds cells sealed he "swarms them," which 

 perhaps means that he makes an artificial 

 swarm by taking away bees and brood. 



If inversion would destroy all unsealed cells, 

 then inversion every seven days would prevent 

 all swarming, and that would be a big thing; 

 but nearly all have, I think, given up the plan 

 as a failure. 



THOSE FIGURES. 



I said Hon. R. L. Taylor was a good man. So 

 he is; but he isn't always good. Sometimes 

 he's bad. He was bad when on page 226 he 

 tried to shake my confidence in myself as'a 

 mathematician. I don't know as much asri 

 might, but I always did think I could count. 

 Even the solace of that thought Bro. Taylor 

 wants to wrench from me. 



I've just taken off my coat, and counted it all 

 over again. I come out of the effort a sadder 

 (but I'm sorry to say not a wiser) man. I'm 

 not nearly so wise as I thought I was. The one 

 thing that I thought I certainly knew, I find I 

 don't know; for I don't know how to count. 

 The director of the experiment station and the 

 editor of GleaninC4S agree on the count on page 

 111, American Bee Journal, so there can be no 

 mistake about the correct count. I can't count 

 it the same way, so there's no alternative— I 

 can't count. 



More than that, it seems I can't use the cor- 

 rect English expression. For I said T supers 

 had a majority of votes when I didn't mean 

 they had a majority of all votes, but a plurality. 

 I suppose I might get out of that by saying 

 they had a majority over any other one kind. 



Certainly I didn't make such bad work counting 

 as to think thatT supers had more than half of 

 all the votes cast. 



Now, Mr. Editor, I think I've been humiliat- 

 ed sufficiently to be teachable, and am ready to 

 sit at your feet and learn how to count. I'd 

 rather learn from you than from that man Tay- 

 lor. It is true, you help him to expose my ig- 

 norance, but you wouldn't have done so if he 

 hadn't begun it. So I'm maddest at him. You 

 say six prefer T supers. I'm glad of that, for 

 that's just what I counted. So I can count 

 some things. " Six out of 22," you say. I don't 

 know whether I can count that 22 straight or 

 not. I can count 22 people, but hardly more 

 than 17 votes, for five of the people don't tell 

 whether they like T supers or some other sur- 

 plus-arrangement best, the answer of one being 

 "One-pound sections." But never mind about 

 that— teach me to count a smaller number first. 

 I count 4 for slatted supers, one for the Heddon 

 super, 4 for wide frames, one for section-holders, 

 6 for T supers, and one for his own arrange- 

 ment. For wide frames there are Messrs. Doo- 

 little, Pringle, Pond, and R. L. Taylor. Please 

 tell me how you make 6 out of them. For sec- 

 tion-holders, J. A. Green. Please tell me how 

 you make 6 out of him. 



Marengo, 111., March 28. 



P. S. — Do you have tuition in advance? If 

 so, send on your bill. 



[If you turn to the editorials in that same 

 issue, June 1, wherein that footnote is conspic- 

 uous by its absence, you will see that I there 

 stated that, owing to ill health, the preparation 

 of that number was delegated largely to others. 

 It seemed at that time, at least, that I should 

 have to give up all office work entirely; and it 

 is not much wonder that I did not put any foot- 

 notes in that and the subsequent issue in some 

 places where they were needed. If I could have 

 had my usual health, I should have put in 

 something at the end of the article a good deal 

 as you have outlined. At all events, I indorse 

 it word for word. Yes, it is what I ought to 

 have written, but could not; and, thanks to the 

 beef diet, I firmly believe I shall never get back 

 to where I once was. 



Regarding those figures: Now that you have 

 been humiliated, you would humiliate me by 

 aiming your darts (questions) at me instead of 

 Mr. Taylor. Pray, did you consider me a more 

 vulnerable target than Taylor? He made the 

 statements that you ascribe to me: I simply 

 indorsed them by stating that my count tallied 

 with his. Well, if I am to father them to that 

 extent, all right. 



We all three count 6 in favor of the T supers. 

 When I checked off the Question-box, page 111, 

 of the American Bee Journal, 1 put a letter T 

 oppo!-ite the names of the T-super men; S after 

 tbe section-holder advocates; and W opposite 

 those who preferred wide frames. In going 

 back over my file I find 6 T's and 6 W's. Mind 

 you, these letters were put down before I had 

 read Taylor's article through to know what 

 his count was; and when I found that my 

 count tallied with his I naturally concluded 

 that he had counted right. Well, I think so 

 yet; but I believe I see where your count dif- 

 fers from mine on the wide-frame matter. I 

 will not say Taylor's, because I do not know 



