896 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 15 



you think they would have produced fertile 

 workers if I had left them with the first 

 bees? 



As little more than a beg-inner (this is 

 my second j'ear) I hardly know how much 

 my observations are to be trusted, but I am 

 confident that the facts are as stated. 



George A. Bates. 



Highwood, N. J., Sept. 5. 



[In reply to the above, Dr. Miller says:] 



Taking- the last part of your letter first, 

 I may say that I haven't the slightest idea. 



The item to which you refer, p. 7l7, 1900, 

 was written more than a year ago, and was 

 a reminder of a challenge to Messrs. Brice, 

 Taylor, Hutchinson, and others, to produce 

 proof that, when a colony is made queen- 

 less, the bees are in such haste for a queen 

 that they choose larvae too old for good re- 

 sults. I said the season was well along, 

 and neither of the gentlemen named had of- 

 fered any proof, adding: "Here's a simple 

 thing that any one can try: Take away a 

 queen; then watch whether the first queen- 

 cells started contain small or large larvje. 

 Either give a proof that queenless bees are 

 in such haste for a queen that they choose 

 to their hurt, or else abandon the belief as 

 a false tradition of the dead past." An- 

 other year has now passed, making an op- 

 portunity of two full seasons to furnish the 

 required proof; and as they have not fur- 

 nished it the conclusion must be that the 

 matter wjis not worth their while, or else 

 that they could not g"ive the proof. It isn't 

 reasonable to believe that they did not think 

 worth while, from the fact that they had al- 

 ready taken the pains to give the matter as 

 much time in trying to refute my view as it 

 would to furnish the proof if it were possi- 

 ble to furnish such proof: so I think I am 

 justified in saying that they could furnish 

 no such proof. 



In your observations you found that, two 

 days after g-iving brood to queenless bees, 

 they were sealing full-grown larvie. That 

 leaves the matter a little indefinite. If j'ou 

 had observed when they were sealed we 

 should have something- more definite. If 

 you are not familiar with such matters it is 

 possible j'ou might think thej'^ " were being 

 sealed up " a considerable time before the 

 actual sealing. Suppose, however, a still 

 greater advance than you name, and that 

 the cells were actually sealed two days aft- 

 er the brood was g-iven. The bees having 

 been already queenless would begin work 

 upon the queen-cells immediately upon the 

 brood being given, and there would be two 

 days of feeding before sealing. As there 

 are five days of feeding, the bees would, 

 under our supposition, have chosen larvae 

 three days old. As the worker larvje are 

 not weaned till three days old, or, in other 

 words, are fed for three days the same as 

 royal larva;, they would not appear to be 

 too old for good queens. So you will see 

 that the case you cite is not a proof that the 

 bees chose larvae too old. 



In the absence of anj' proof to the contra- 



ry. I am strongly of the opinion that the 

 larvas were not actually sealed until more 

 than two days after the brood was given. I 

 base my opinion upon observations extend- 

 ing over a period of forty years, and espe- 

 cially upon observations of hundreds of 

 cases during the last two j'ears, with my 

 attention carefully directed to the matter. 

 In no case have I ever found the bees select- 

 ing a larva that seemed to be as much as 

 three days old, and I feel pretty sure that 

 Messrs. Brice, Taj'lor, and Hutchinson 

 would mention it if they had' found a larva 

 more than three days old chosen. I may 

 say, in passing, that I do not believe that a 

 larva three days old is quite as good as one 

 younger, in spite of the fact that such larva 

 has not j'et been weaned. M3' oul3^ reason 

 for this belief is the fact that I have never 

 known the bees to select by preference a 

 larva as old as three days. 



You ask if I don"t think that the " dome- 

 shaped cells" would have produced laying 

 workers if they had been allowed to come to 

 maturity. I do not at all believe they would. 

 It was formerly supposed by some that lay- 

 ing workers had in some way secured some 

 royal jelly during their larval period. Lat- 

 er investigations have shown that, where 

 laying workers are found, a large number 

 are present, perhaps half of the workers in 

 the hive containing- eggs; and in some cases 

 laying workers appear so soon after queen- 

 lessuess that their larval period must have 

 been completed before the colony became 

 queenless. 



You are entirely right in thinking that 

 what you call dome-shaped cells did not 

 contain drone brood; but you are just as far 

 wrong if you think such cells could not con- 

 tain good queens. If you find at any time a 

 queen-cell that is rather small and smooth, 

 /;/ a place where there is plenty of room for 

 it to be made larger, as on or near the edge 

 of a comb, you are safe to reject it as one not 

 likely to produce a good queen. The case 

 is difl^erent if the cell is in the middle of a 

 comb with all the surrounding cells occu- 

 pied with brood. The bees do not seem to 

 have room to enlarge and ornament such a 

 cell; and all that I have ever seen in such 

 situations had the surfaces as smooth as 

 the cappings of drone-cells, a slig-ht differ- 

 ence in size and shape being the only thing 

 to distinguish such a cell from a drone- 

 cell. But you may generally expect a good 

 queen from such a cell; and I think it prob- 

 able that, if you had allowed the cells you 

 mention to go on to maturity, instead of lay- 

 ing workers 3'ou might have had good 

 queens. C. C. Miller. 



Marengo, 111. 



" SHOOK " SWARMS. 

 The Ideal Piaia Section. 



BY GEO. SHIBER. 



The past season I have practiced quite 

 largely the plan of "s hook-oft"" swarms, 

 the same as described by Mr. L. Stachel- 



