AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 567 



us see what the shape has to do with it. If it is really true that a hive is possible 

 which will combine the advantaRes of the 8 and the 10 frame, and be better than 

 either without storifying, it should not lightly be passed by because it would not be 

 the standard size. 



And it is really important that the question should be discussed without refer- 

 ence to a standard, for some of us will kick over the traces anyhow (witness Dadant, 

 Heddon, Tinker, and a crowd of lesser lights), and we want to know all the bear- 

 ings of the case. The answers to Query 926 seem very authoritative ; but put it 

 this way : Suppose there was no standard, how many would have settled on 17% 

 by 93^, or nearly that? I strongly suspect that although the querist did not add 

 the words, "and taking into consideration the desirability of conforming to a stan- 

 dard size" — he probably left out that condition purposely— yet nearly every one of 

 those who answered mentally supplied them. And then, how much authority can 

 we attach to the answer of a man who has had little or no experience with other 

 sizes? The very fact that the Langstroth is so prevalent, proves that fevf are com- 

 petent to consider the question of absolutely the best size. In fact, there are plenty 

 of indications to show that this claim of Mr. Frazier's is nothing new, but has been 

 known all along to a few of the best apiarists ; and that it has probably only been 

 prevented from receiving recognition because of the reverence paid to the standard. 

 That is all right, but it may be carried too far. Kest assured that some time the 

 absolutely best will be the standard. "Progress" is the watchword of the day. 

 Ours is not a Chinese civilization. We had better yield gracefully while we may. 

 That once admitted, there is plenty of room for discussion as to how fast to change. 

 If it seems best to go very slow, so be it. 



Mr. Dayton has an article bearing somewhat on this subject, from the honey- 

 storage point of view, on page 173 of Vol. XXVIII of the " American Bee Journal." 

 He comes to the conclusion that small hives are better when the Langstroth frame is 

 taken as a basis. That really leaves the question unsettled. 



Mr. Doolittle's article in the July "Review," shows that he has settled the 

 question for himself without considering the shape of the brood-nest as an impor- 

 tant element — or the standard frame either, for that matter. 



It will be found interesting in this connection to read, in " Dadant's Lang- 

 stroth," paragraphs 302 (with Fig. 60) to 307 inclusive, some additional argu- 

 ments in favor of the Quinby size. But this precise point of Mr. Frazier's is no- 

 where touched on, in this book or any other, so far as I know, unless it may be 

 indicated in the words which I have italicized from paragraph 307: "We have 

 used on a large scale Quinby, American and Standard Langstroth sized frames for 

 years, and have obtained better results from the Quinby, both for wintering out-of- 

 doors, and for honey -producing." 



Note, too, that H. D. Cutttiug says in reply to Query 926 : " I have had the best 

 success with a frame a little shorter and deeper" than the Langstroth. 



If the Dadants would favor us with their views on this matter, it would be help- 

 ful. Their use of 10 frames instead of 8 implies that they would not altogether 

 agree with Mr. Frazier. 



There is one criticism I would make on the recent 8 and 10 frame discussion in 

 "Gleanings." There is never enough said about locality. A remark is dropped 

 about it here and there, but not enough to keep the unwary from being misled. It 

 seems to be taken for granted that all the readers of "Gleanings" have a white 

 clover flow. It is admitted, I think, by those competent to judge, that there are 

 parts of the country in which a 10-frame Langstroth is better than an 8-frame, 

 whatever may be their opinions in regard to the locality in which they are. Mr. 



