ni<j BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW^ 



215 



spaces cnt in one edge. This strip is nailed 

 to the bottom board and the teeth are bent 

 upward so that each cue maintains one 

 space in its proper locality. As for me, I 

 often wish tliat my frames were better 

 spaced — but it always seems that I can bear 

 the ills I havejKs^o littli- irhile ^ongr^rratlier 

 than to incur the annoyances of spacers. 



C. Davenport says that a newly hived col- 

 ony intending to desert seldom goes the 

 same day; usually the next forenoon, .lust 

 look at them sharply when other colonies 

 are tirst getting to work lively. If they in- 

 tend to stay they will be doing the same. If 

 only now and then a bee is languidly moving 

 in and out the entrance they mean to take 

 " French leave " in a few hours. In that 

 case he would set them hive and all into the 

 cellar for two days. A. B. .J. 25)2. 



Dadaut is sensible in his ideas on fighting 

 adulteration on page ;iH7 A. B. J. Don't 

 waste time, and make worse than book 

 agents of yourselves, by worrying your legis- 

 lators about a new law. (to right at the evil 

 with the laws now on the books. Time 

 enough to ask for more statutes when the 

 need of them is proved. Bring suits against 

 the big firms of scamps and bluff off the 

 small firms that buy of them to sell again. 

 Most of the latter are so near honest men 

 that the prospect of a S20.00 fine would 

 make commercial saints of them. 



The A. B. .I.'s South African Deacon is 

 not as sober as deacons have the name of 

 being — quite a case. On page 38.5 he goes in 

 for all he is worth in defence of the drone. 

 Then he pleads for mercy, and for somebody 

 to come to his support. All right, friend 

 Deacon, I'll stand at your back for a spell 

 anyhow— marry when missies get to flying 

 pretty thick, I may have an important 

 article tc write. He sums the matter up in 

 three questions, and aside from all joking, 

 my response to each of them would be favor- 

 able. " Have the advantages of getting rid 

 of drones been over-estimated?" Greatly 

 over-estimated, I suspect. Ceased my gen- 

 eral warfare with droues many years ago. 

 (2) *'.\re there not some counterbalancing 

 advantages?" Quite likely. The one sug- 

 gested by friend Deacon — that a normal 

 number of drones conduces to greater 

 energy all around — is ()iiite plausible. Ijike 

 the baby in the household, the drone seems 

 to be an obstruction, but may be a stimu- 

 lant. Take away the b;iby, and the divorce 

 lawyer soon finishes the rain. Slaughter 



the drones every week and the colony 

 swarms itself to death. It was long ago 

 noticed that colonies with a greatly abnor- 

 mal number of drones do not swarm; and 

 probably a normal number mitigates in 

 some slight degree the evils of over-swarm- 

 ing. Perhaps the strongest light in which 

 I can put it is this: Bees are very contrary 

 creatures. Try to deprive them of all 

 drones, and they at once enter into an ex- 

 cited struggle with you. And while they are 

 in a semi-frantic frame of mind on any sub- 

 ject (except honey storing) they will not 

 store honey at their best. (3) •' How much 

 more surplus from ten colo ies bereft of all 

 drones than from ten colonies normal?" I 

 should rather expect less. 



VV. P. Taylor, A. B. .T. :57(), thinks that bees 

 divided and again divided so they could not 

 swarm (nor contemplate such a thing, even) 

 for a number of years would lose the swarm- 

 ing tendency. If this were only so ! It 

 wouldn't be a bad thing for some experi- 

 ment station to try it. And then a season 

 like the present one has been in this locality 

 would sooner or later knock the stufling out 

 of any false conceits that might be set up. 

 Also Mr. Taylor's experience with five 

 banded bees is worth mentioning. He finds 

 all he has tried nou-swarmers — but just be- 

 cause the queens do not lay rapidly enough 

 to start swarming. 



On page HG9, A. B. .T., we have set before 

 us with considerable clearness the main 

 points at issue between two leading authors 

 on bees — that is, the points as to the origin 

 of the royal jelly and tlie white larval food. 

 Mr. Cheshire holds that the lower glands of 

 the bee's head secrete these substances. 

 Prof. Cook holds that the secretion is only 

 an ingredient, or rather a ferment by means 

 of which the ingredients are reduced or di- 

 gested. It certainly seems to me that the 

 experiment by whicli Prof. Cook verifies the 

 correctness of his contention cannot be 

 gainsaid. He fed l)ees that were producing 

 royal jelly with food in which finely powder- 

 ed charcoal had been mixed. In due time 

 the royal jelly under the microscope was 

 seen to contain atoms of charcoal. Mani- 

 festly this charcoal could not have passed 

 from the bee's stomach into its blood, and 

 then again from the blood into a secretion, 

 which was a secretion pure and simple. 



Ergo, we are to consider (at present) that 

 honey and pollen, and what else we know 

 not, go down into the bee's stomach. On 



