1889 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



387 



proof. It is very easy to tell with the microscope 

 whether or not a queen has met a drone. If so, the 

 very active sperm-cells are easily found. I have 

 dissected these drone-laying queens repeatedly, 

 and always failed to find the spermatozoa. They 

 were not there. So 1 am positively sure that the 

 queens never mated; and yet they produced drones, 

 hence I know that parthenogenesis is true. 



Again I have dissected fertile workers— several 

 of them— and though they laid eggs, I even found 

 eggs in their ovaries; yet all produced drones. 

 Moreover, they had no spermatheca. True, the 

 little rudiment, small and functionally imperfect, 

 was present, but no sign of an active spermatheca. 

 TJlivi says these are real queens, and have mated. 

 It will be difficult to convince such apiarists as 

 Viallon, of Louisiana, who sent nie several fertile 

 workers at one time, that these are queens. They 

 have the form and general structure of workers 

 throughout, except that they are fertile. From 

 dissection I know they never had met, nor was it 

 possible for them to meet a drone. They were not 

 sufficiently developed. Many other insects, like 

 ants and wasps, illustrate this law as exemplified 

 in bees; while other insects, even as high as moths, 

 have been known to produce eggs that hatched, 

 and yet the moth had never been near a male. 



The statement of TJlivi, that this theory is an- 

 nounced to favor breeders of queens, is not wor- 

 thy of notice, certainly in America. Many, I think 

 most of our queen-breeders, are men of high char- 

 acter, who would despise to misrepresent or de- 

 ceive. To say that Dzierzon and Berlepsch pro- 

 posed this theory with fraudulent purpose or in- 

 tent, is very unkind and uncalled for. Both were 

 grand men who would scorn such a thought even 

 —men who thought no evil. Such insinuations 

 need no refutation. Our bee-keepers are too in- 

 telligent to heed them for one moment. 



Agricultural College, Mich. A. J. Cook. 



FIXED FRAMES. 



FRIEND HKDDON CONSIDERS THEIK ADVANTAGES. 



T WAS deeply interested in reading the answers 

 jfflf to Query 117, which is as follows: "If you use 

 ^ll all-wood frames, do you prefer to have them 

 A hung on metal rabbets or on a plain wood bear- 

 ing, in the production of honey?" 

 1 believe all who answered this question, did so 

 honestly from their experience as honey-producers. 

 A few years ago I should have answered it the 

 same as the majority of them did, because I should 

 have answered it from my standpoint of knowledge 

 and experience at that time. Brother C. C. Miller 

 says, "On a plain wood bearing. Then they are al- 

 ways ready to haul without fastening the frames." 

 Prother Geo. Grimm says, "I use all-wood frames 

 hung on wood bearings. Metal rabbets are a 

 source of constant annoyance to me, and the few 

 fhat I had I have discarded." 



Now, friend Root, I am going to attack your 

 foot-notes next, for you are also one of those fel- 

 lows who pitch in among the answers. You say 

 that a few have been bold enough to discard frames 

 altogether, having a shallow brood-oase something 

 like Heddon's, and letting the ponjbs be built in 

 solid. Yes, sir, that was the very idea I had years 

 ago, when I wrote an article for which you call- 

 ed me a box-hjve bee - keeper, ftnd made a box- 



hive department, fully expecting that 1 would 

 have that department to dance around in all by 

 myself. That kind of a hive would have one 

 splendid advantage. Having no bottom-bars in the 

 way, how easily you could look into every thing ! 

 But you see with my new hive I have a § bottom 

 and top bar, so 1 could get nearly as great an ad- 

 vantage in that direction. Weil, by experimenting 

 carefully with this and various other styles, I 

 found I really did want the frames, especially 

 where full sheets of foundation are used. 



Nearly all of those who have answered this 

 question contemplate pulling the frames out and 

 in, very frequently. None of them contemplate a 

 hive with which nearly every bit of the useful 

 manipulation, such as the practical honey-produc- 

 er desires, can be done without ever removing a 

 frame. Another thing: The close-fitting frame, 

 which they all have in their mind's eye, works up- 

 on an entirely different plan from the manner in 

 which I use it. When father Langstroth visited 

 me and practically handled my hive, he would not 

 believe, before he had put it to the test, that he 

 himself could handle eight of these close-fitting 

 frames quicker than he or any one else could han- 

 dle the suspended frame; but he found he could. 

 He found an arrangement or adjustment of which 

 he had not hitherto conceived. Let me give you 

 the exact words of the grand old benefactor whose 

 mind and conception of mechanics seems to be as 

 bright as ever it could be. I quote from his arti- 

 cle in the American Bee Journal: 



1. Before I saw the easy working of his frames 



(EVEN IN HIVES WHICH HAD BEEN OCCUPIED FOR 



several years by bees), with close-fitting up- 

 rights (I prefer this French term to our word ends), 

 I could not conceive how they could possibly be 

 handled as rapidly or safely as the Langstroth 

 frames. The propolis trouble alone seemed to for- 

 bid this. Judge of my surprise, then, to And, that, 

 by leaving no space for bees to get between the up- 

 rights and the cases holding the frames, and by 

 keeping the touching surfaces of the uprights so 

 closely pressed together by the thumb-screws as to 

 leave no joint open wide enough for bee-glue, he 

 had actually reduced the propolizing propensity of 

 bees to a minimum. 



My knowledge of the trouble and delay in manip- 

 ulating all the previous styles of close-fitting up- 

 rights, led me to think that it would be quite diffi- 

 cult to handle the Heddon frames. To find that 1 

 was mistaken on this point, was a greater surprise 

 than the way in which the propolis difficulty was 

 met. In handling Langstroth frames of the stan- 

 dard depth (and still more with deeper frames), 

 bees are often hurt between the uprights and case 

 a thing impossible with the Heddon arrangement, 

 while at the same time the uprights of his case— as 

 they go down into the hive, when a frame is put 

 back— only push the hees away instead of pinching 

 them between their closing surfaces. When the 

 Langstroth frames are put back, even by experts, 

 it often happens that they must re-adjust the spac- 

 ing, to get room for the last frame; whereas the 

 Heddon frames always go to their proper places. 

 As a matter of fact, then, the Heddon frames can 

 be safely handled with more rapidity than any in 

 previous use; thus securing all the advantages of 

 close-fitting uprights without their old inconven- 

 iences. 



It seems to me, friend Root, that the whole 

 thing is summed up in this way: Bee-keepers who 

 have educated themselves to the constant handling 

 of combs, prefer the hives arranged as are tene- 

 ments, and they want the metal rests, and laterally 

 movable frames; but those who have found them- 

 selves compelled to handle 200 colonies of bees in 

 the same length of time they used to handle 100, 

 have found they must handle the hives more, and 

 not open them so much. This iB lust what I found, 



