144 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTUEE. 



Feb. 



fit first rate. Those were my olijectioiis. ] make 

 the same machine, but inake tlie can one inch deep- 

 er and one inch wider; comlj-liasket (wire cloth, 

 three meshes to the inch) one inch deeper and one 

 inch wider; and put in a two inch g'ate. We like 

 the Chapman machine the best for our work of any 

 we ever saw; but if I make them I can make them 

 to suit me. We make for our own use only, and 

 don't make to sell. E. France. 



Platteville, Wis. 



Friend F., you have sj-iveii us an excellent 

 summing-up of the cost of liquid honey. 

 You say, however, tiie past season has l)een 

 an extra good one. Now. it is quite likely 

 that, during a poor season, the honey might 

 cost as much as you get for it. In that case, 

 however, you will have your salary for your- 

 self and son, which is worth something. T 

 don't believe it is time to stop until the cash 

 out exceeds the cash in. In tliat case you 

 would have nothing at all for your year's 

 labor, and, of course, there must be re- 

 trenchment sooner or later, or else a wind- 

 ing-up of the business.— You make a point 

 in regard to the honey-extractor, friend F., 

 that is worthy of notice. If wire cloth with 

 only three meshes to the inch, instead of 

 four, such as we use, answers every purpose 

 of an extractor, I should think it would be 

 preferable, because the honey would pass 

 out more treely. Is it not true, however, 

 that there is more lial)ility of the wire cloth 

 sinking into the combs? 



MY BEE-STING THEORY. 



W. F. CL.\HKE'S HKI'KV, 



fAK be it from me to "take it unkindly " that 

 friend Savage or anybody else should "ques- 

 tion the scientific accuracy " of my bee-sting, 

 hibernation, or any other theory, especially 

 when it is done in a vein of good-natur- 

 ed pleasantry. In fact, 1 rather enjoy that sort 

 of thing. But i; fail to see how the title, " Bees 

 vs. Beavers," applies to the subject in hand, for 

 1 do not know of any antagonism between 

 these two industrious races. There is resem- 

 blance in some respects. Bees work like beavers, 

 with unflagging Industry and indomitable persever- 

 ance. Perhaps, also, they work like heavers in 

 making use of their tails. But this is the poi?it in 

 dispute, not between bees and beavers, but between 

 bee-keepers like friend Savage and mjself. 



After a quotation which sets forth my theory in 

 part, the writer says, " Now, I wish to know wheth- 

 er any company of bee-keepers would receive, with- 

 out question, such speculations." Well, I hcpe not. 

 I should be very sorry to have any thing of the sort 

 received simply on ray i'p.sc dixit. Not even reli- 

 gious teaching is to be thus received. The ancient 

 Bereans are praised as " more noble than those of 

 Thessalonica," because they did not give an un- 

 questioning assent, even to Paul's preaching, but 

 " seai-ched the scriptures daily whether these things 

 were so." This is the i)roi>er attitude of mind in re- 

 gard to the entii-e circle of human knowlcdse. 

 When any thing is received as apicultural trtith, he- 

 cause Cook or Heddoti or Doolittle' or CIleanings 

 or Clarke says it is so, we come to the mental slav- 

 ery which leads people to believe because the 

 priest or minister says so. Away with all this hu- 



miliation of mind! I want nothing of mine receiv- 

 ed unless it commends itself to the reason as having 

 the stamp of truth upon it. 



Friend Savage asks, " Is the latter end indeed the 

 ' business end ' of the bee?" Tliat is no speculation 

 of mine. It is a common remark about the bee, 

 that the sting end is the business end of that in- 

 sect. I did not invent this phrase, claim no patent 

 on it, and suppose it will continue to be in vogue 

 even if my theory about the use of the sting as 

 a trowel be shown to be a mistake. Properly speak- 

 ing, both ends of the bee are business ends, and so 

 also is the middle a place of business. The bee is 

 constructed for business all over. 



Perhaps I have too readily assumed that it is the 

 fortnic acid which imparts to honey its keeping 

 quality. Certainly I have regarded that as one of 

 the fixed facts in apiculture. The honey stored by 

 the stingless bees in Central and South America 

 has no formic acid in it, and will not keep. Friend 

 Savage writes as if the formic acid were a foreign 

 and poisonous element in honey. Is that so? Is 

 not its' total absence, or its presence in too small 

 quantity, a source of trouble with honey that is ex- 

 tracted before being partially or wholly sealed 

 over? If normal honey must have some infusion 

 of this acid in it, then surely we are not warranted 

 in assuming that it is injected only when bees are 

 angered. Admitting this, we must believe that 

 they inject what is required "amid the sweet satis- 

 faction and exceeding joy " with which they pur- 

 sue their " unmolested avocations" within the hive. 

 I have not said a word calculated to " create a fresh 

 terror and panic " in the public mind as to the adul- 

 teration of honey with a poison. There is a trace 

 of prussic acid in some fruits, in all stone fruits, if 

 I am not mistaken; but I don't see anything in this 

 to create " terror and panic." Nature has a won- 

 derful alchemj', and uses, in minute quantities, ele- 

 ments that, in larger supplj', are known to be poi- 

 sonous. Honey is not " evermore unsafe " because 

 " poisoned by the bees themselves at the fountain 

 head." It is not poisoned by the minute portion of 

 formic acid given for the purpose of flavoring and 

 preserving it, any more than all the tinctures of 

 the druggist are poisoned by the alcohol put with 

 them to preserve them. Exaggerated truth is one 

 form of falsehood. 



I do not propose at present to go into any proof of 

 my theory. All I have said is, that my observations 

 and reflections have led to the formation of an 

 opinion which I have given to the bee-keeping pub- 

 lic for what it is worth— much, little, or nothing. I 

 am not a microscopist— the more's the pity; but I 

 have seen many drawings of the bee-sting, and 

 (luite understand that it is as Ernest describes it, 

 with a single exception. It is a " flne-pointed in- 

 strument like a cambric needle," in shape only, but 

 very unlike it in texture, being remarkably flexible 

 and elastic, quite capable of being twisted and 

 curved to and fro. Used along with the tarsi, two 

 soft fine hairy brushes, one on either side of the 

 sting, I do not see any mechanical objection to its 

 being utilized in the way I have suggested. Neither 

 does Ernest, api)arently, or he would point it out. 

 But ns to the offices of the sting in curing the 

 honey or capping the cells, he has nothing to say, 

 either pro or con. Perhaps he will, after further 

 investigation. I hope he will, and others also. 

 I do not know why tongue and mandibles may 

 not aid the sting and tarsi in the offices referred 



