1^08 



GI.KANINC^S IN BEE CULTURE. 



891 



All these cells were destroyed, and, two days later, at 2 r.M., 

 the colony was again examined, with the following results; 



Larva nearly filled worker-cell (4 days) 4 



Larva becoming extended in cell 1 



Sealed cell with larva straightened out 3 



The ages of larv.t are merely approximate, and are based on 

 the sizes of worker larv^. Since queen larvs probably grow 

 more rapidly on account of extra feeding, it is probable that all 

 these approximate dates are too high. 



All larvje were removed fiom queen-cells, and fitted into work- 

 er-cells to determine the size. 



As befitting his position, Dr. Phillips has re- 

 frained from drawing conclusions, as if to say: 

 "There's what the bees did; make the best (or 

 the worst) of it." Although it is not the easiest 

 thing to draw conclusions that are positive and 

 exact, it will do no harm to analyze some of the 

 particulars, and at least make some deductions. 



Looking at the lot of eight cells mentioned at 

 first trial, I fancy I hear some beginner say, 

 "There's at least one case in which the bees 

 made a bad choice, for the age of the larva is 

 given at four days, plu^, which no doubt means 

 something more than 4 days old. If three days 

 is the oldest that will do for a good queen, then 

 certainly the larva in question must have been 

 too old by more than a day." Not so fast, my 

 good friend; don't you see that this larva was not 

 necessarily four days old at the time it was select- 

 ed by the bees.? It was four days old when the 

 examination was made, and that was two days 

 and three hours after the bees were made queen- 

 less. 



To come to any definite conclusion in this case 

 we need to know just how long after removal of 

 the queen the bees discover their queenlessness 

 and get busy at starting queen-cells. Without 

 looking the matter up, i think my memory is not 

 at fault in saying that not long ago there was 

 some discussion of the matter, both the editor 

 and C. P. Dadant agreeing that it was within a 

 few hours — one of them, if I mistake not, saying 

 it was within the hour, or almost immediately. 

 Let us figure at what time, after unqueening, this 

 larva must have been selected to make it too old. 

 Right here we run against a snag in that "four 

 days, pkis. " Plus how much.? For the sake of 

 some basis to work on, let us assume it means 

 four days plus six hours. Then if it was started 

 when just three days old, it must have been se- 

 lected one day and six hours previous to the ex- 

 amination. That would be twenty-one hours 

 after the removal of the queen. 



But it must not be forgotten that that " plus " 

 might be more than six hours. Suppose we call 

 it 18 hours. Then, if selected at three days old, 

 the selection must have been made nine hours 

 after unqueening. 



I am free to confess prejudice in favor of the 

 good judgment of the bees; and, rather than ad- 

 mit any lack in this regard, I would plead the 

 possibilities in the case. It is possible that the 

 bees started the cell within an hour after the re- 

 moval of the queen, and it is possible that the 

 "plus" maybe not more than three hours. 

 That would make the age of the larva at time of 

 selection not more than two days and one hour 

 old. 



The majority of the larvie (four) were less than 

 three days old at the time of examination; so of 

 course they were less than three days old when 

 selected, and may have been less than one day 

 old. The remaining larva was still younger. 



Of the six lar\;e started, then, hxe were most pos- 

 itively started when less than three days old, and 

 it can not be proven that the sixth was too old, 

 the strong probability being that it was the first 

 one selected, as it was the oldest of the lot. It is 

 very clear that those who say the bees are so lack- 

 ing in judgment as to select larva; that are too 

 old do not find the proof of it in this part of the 

 experiment. 



The other two experiments are of no practical 

 interest to the man who rears queens only from 

 the first batch started. They are of interest, 

 however, from another point of view, for those 

 who say that the haste of the bees to rear a queen 

 makes them select larva? too old say also that, if 

 the first lot be destroyed, the bees will have got- 

 ten over their haste and will then select younger 

 larv.e. Does comparison of the different parts of 

 the experiment prove this.? 



The average age of larvit found at first exami- 

 nation was 2.33 days; at the second, 3.4; at the 

 third, 4.5. Suppose it took the bees twelve hours 

 in each case to discover the need of starting cells; 

 then the average age of larva? at the time of fiist 

 selection was 1.83; second, 2.9; third, 4 days. It 

 may be said that, in the first case, the bees would 

 be longer in discovering their need of starting 

 cells than in the other cases. But that can not 

 possibly account for a difference of 2.17 days be- 

 tween the first and the last case. It may also be 

 noted that, while it can not be proven that any 

 larva in the first case was chosen when too old, 

 there is clear proof that in the other two cases 

 larva? were chosen that, if not too old, were at 

 least older than any in the first lot. 



It may be urged that larvx were older in the 

 second and third cases than in the first. Yet at 

 the beginning of the third period the queen had 

 been removed just three days and three hours, and 

 so abundance of young larva; must have been 

 present, the youngest being only three hours out 

 of the shell. 



I submit that the experiment does not prove 

 that bees when made queenless select larvas too 

 old; nor that there is any gain by destroying the 

 first lot of cells started and giving the bees a sec- 

 ond chance. 



Some one may say, "Well, suppose some one 

 does hold mistaken views on the subject, what 

 matter.?" It matters for two reasons. One is 

 that I believe it a libel on the intelligence of the 

 bee to accuse it of doing so unwise a thing as to 

 select poor larva? when better can be had. That 

 is a sentimental reason; the other is practical. It 

 is that erroneous teaching in this regard is likely 

 to frighten the every-day producer of honey 

 away from what is for him the easiest and best 

 way of rearing queens; and that is not only a 

 practical but a very important thing. 



I doubt if there's any ground for the error ex- 

 cept prejudice. Prejudice, however, takes a 

 powerful grip on one. There's Editor Hutchin- 

 son, a man who has sometimes shown himself the 

 personification of unprejudiced fairness, who 

 holds tenaciously to this error, with no inclina- 

 tion to set himself right, and to do justice to the 

 bees. I have coaxed him, I have defied him, to 

 makea very simple experiment that I think would 

 convince him — simply to unqueen a colony, and 

 then look 24 hours later and say how old were 

 the larvw he found in queen-cells. Then he 



