1901 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



477 



tongues, it has not been accompanied by the 

 statement that long tongues were of value on- 

 ly in red-clover regions. Was there any ne- 

 cessity for such accompanying statement ? 

 Has it not been so generally understood that 

 it did not need mention ? If, however, it 

 turns out that the value of long tongues is not 

 restricted to red-clover regions (and testimony 

 to that fact is not wanting), then still less is it 

 necessary. 



Numerous quotations in favor of long 

 tongues are given, and then Mr. Doolittle says: 



"And so I might go on, giving quotation after quo- 

 tation of statements made along this line, without any 

 special qualificatioti, or, if any qualifications have 

 been made, they have been so hidden under a lot of 

 rubbish, or so tvristed that the reader is led to believe 

 that long-tongued bees are just the thing he should 

 have if he would succeed, no matter about red clover, 

 or in what portion of the country he resides. 



" Now, as I hinted in the start, long-tongued bees f/o 

 have an advantage outside of the red-clover districts, 

 or they do not ; and to give misleading statements, or 

 those actually false, is something that our bee-papers 

 of the present day should not stoop to doing, not even 

 when the motive of gain prompts its advertisers." 



As all the quotations immediately preceding 

 these two paragraphs are from Gleanings, 

 there is no Winking the fact that Gleanings 

 is the paper meant. It is true the words " bee- 

 papers " are used ; but it seems evident that 

 Mr. Doolittle had only one paper in mind, for, 

 immediately following, in the same sentence, 

 he speaks of '■^its advertisers." 



The direct charge of hiding under a lot of 

 rubbish and twisting the truth, and the scarce- 

 ly veiled charge of giving misleading state- 

 ments, or those actually false, is a somewhat 

 serious one, and Gleanings promptly enters 

 a plea of not guilty, and asks Mr. Doolittle to 

 be specific and give an instance of either of 

 the things charged, in which case prompt re- 

 traction and apology will be forthcoming. The 

 quotations given do not substantiate the charg- 

 es. The rubbish under which the trttth is hid- 

 den is not shown ; nor the twist given to it ; and 

 the statements quoted are not such as to mis- 

 lead. 



There seems a degree of inconsistency 

 in making the charge that the attempt has 

 been made to cover up the fact that red-clover 

 regions only could benefit by long tongues, 

 when immediately preceding the charge Mr. 

 Doolittle makes a quotation from Gleanings 

 which, if correctly attributed to the editor, 

 would distinctly disprove the charge, capitali- 

 zing and italicizing it as follows : " The move- 

 ment for longer tongues is simply to get the 

 red-clover crop of the North, which now is 

 practically all wasted. The bees, no one 

 CLAIMS, would be any better except on that ac- 

 count. ' ' 



Mr. Doolittle is hardly justified in making 

 that quotation in such a way as to give the im- 

 pression that the editor holds the opinion ex- 

 pressed in the quotation. Many times a view 

 of a correspondent is not held by the editor. 

 Neither does the editor necessarily hold the 

 views given by one who conducts a special de- 

 partment in Gleanings. This is frequently 

 seen in Dr. Miller's department of Straws, and 

 might happen in Mr. Doolittle's department, 

 or in that of Stenog, from whom the quotation 

 was made. 



It is not very strange that Stenog should so 

 express himself, for it is probably true that 

 the majority of bee-keepers, especially until 

 lately, have had in mind red clover when 

 speaking of long tongues. But the editor by 

 no means holds it as proven that red clover is 

 the only honey-plant with flower-tubes so 

 deep that bees with ordinary tongues can not 

 reach to the bottom. All the same, the in- 

 consistency is, none the less, to be charged 

 with hiding a thing while at the same time 

 holding it up to view. 



It is mentioned as not just the right thing 

 that advertisers from Florida and Texas com- 

 mend their bees with long tongues. Suppose 

 their is no red clover in Florida and Texas ; 

 does not Mr. Doolittle know that such adver- 

 tisers expect to find customers in the North, 

 where there is red clover ? In any case, if an 

 article is offered for what it honestly is, is 

 there any thing wrong in that ? Is a man to 

 be considered a cheat unless every long- 

 tongued bee he offers has a tag attached, read- 

 ing, " Good in red-clover regions only " ? 



Gleanings has tried, and will continue to 

 try, to give the whole truth about bees with 

 long tongues. If measurements show that a 

 large number of the best bees have long 

 tongues in regions where red clover is not 

 grown, then there will be ground for believing 

 that there may be some advantage outside of 

 red-clover regions, in having bees of that sort, 

 whatever the explanation for their superiority 

 may be. Bee-keepers are an intelligent lot, 

 each one capable of judging for himself 

 whether bees with a certain characteristic will 

 be an advantage in any given case. Nor will 

 they relish as a compliment being told that 

 they do not know enough to judge for them- 

 selves whether they want long tongues or not. 



It might be in order to ask why, if it is Mr. 

 Doolittle's duty to call a halt on the long- 

 tongued fad, it was not an equal duty to say 

 something about the fad for five bands. In 

 that there could be no gain in the honey-crop 

 — the only money gain being to those who had 

 queens to sell ; while it is a certainty that a 

 suflScient length of tongue will bring an in- 

 crease of honey wherever there are flower- 

 tubes of honey-plants just beyond the reach 

 of tongues of ordinary length. Did Mr. Doo- 

 little ever call a halt with regard to the chase 

 after color? Did he not, indeed, promote it? 

 and does he not claim to be one of the chief 

 agencies, if not the chief agency, in establish- 

 ing the five-banded bees? If it was right to 

 have a prominent part in a fad that could 

 bring money into the pockets of only a small 

 number engaged in queen- rearing, it hardly 

 seems necessary to be so intensely severe up- 

 on a fad which seeks to put money into the 

 pockets of many times that number through 

 extra gains in crops of honey. 



OUR method of measuring illustrated ; 

 some interesting observations. 



In spite of all I have said on this subject, 

 there are still a good many who do not seem 

 to understand our method of measuring. At 

 several of our bee- conventions last winter I 



