50 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Jan. 23. 



ber that I have adopted a different plan of queen-rearing 

 from what I have formerly used. All who have had experi- 

 ence in the matter also know that the best queens are reared 

 in case of two queens in a hive, or, in other words, when a 

 young queen is reared and fertilized from the same hive which 

 has an old and laying queen in it at the time when the youug 

 one is reared. This is a fact which none will dispute ; but the 

 point to be arrived at is, Are queens thus reared less liliely to 

 swarm than are those reared under the swarming-impulse ? 

 The method I have adopted and given in my book, is nearly 

 the same as that used by the bees where two laying queens 

 are tolerated in a hive at the same time, as the queens are 

 reared above a qneen-excluding honey-board when the old 

 queen is doing full duty below, the colony not having the 

 least disposition to swarm while the queens are being reared. 



About seven years ago I began to notice that I was not 

 having nearly as many swarms as formerly, and the number 

 of swarms coming from my apiary has continued to be less, so 

 that during the last two years I have not had one swarm to 

 where I used to have teu. All the older readers of the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal will remember that, during the 'TO's, I had 

 excessive swarming, one season having above 350 swarms 

 from less than TO colonies in the spring. Swarm they would 

 in spite of all that I could do, so that it was nothing unusual 

 for me to have from five to ten swarms in the air at once, 

 while in one case I had as high as 1-4 swarms all clustered 

 together. As I go back to those days in memory, it certainly 

 does seem that I have made progress along the non-swarming 

 line, for I have not had as many swarms during the past two 

 years as I often had in one day then, and it almost begins to 

 look as if the method of queen-rearing may have had some- 

 thing to do with it. To be sure, some of the seasons of late 

 have not been very good for honey, which may have had some- 

 thing to do with the matter ; yet the seasons when the great- 

 est number of swarms issued during the '70's, were those 

 when only about a half of a crop was obtained. 



I am greatly interested in this matter, and am keeping 

 close watch of it, and I wish all who rear queens entirely 

 above a queen-excluding honey-board would test the thing 

 also, and so be helping to solve the problem, so that we may 

 reach something definite in the matter. Why I say " entirely " 

 is, that some advise having the cells started by colonies having 

 the swarming-impulse, and, after they are started, place them 

 above queen-excluders for completion. Of course, this would 

 not be entirely along the line given in my book, and conse- 

 quently would not be likely to be as perfect as to results. If 

 we could only breed the swarming-impulse out of our bees, it 

 would seem as if it would be better for the majority of those 

 who keep bees as a specialty ; for it is a very easy matter to 

 obtain all the increase desired by the nucleus system, or a 

 division of colonies after the harvest of white honey is over. 

 Or, perhaps, we might breed a certain type of bees as non- 

 swarmers, allowing other types to swarm, the same as we 

 have types of hens which sit, and others which do not incline 

 to sit. Borodino, N. Y. 



¥k 



Evolution and Oueen-CHppiag Again. 



BY ALLEN PRINGLE. 



I am a little late in noting what is said on this subject on 

 page 793 (1895) in rejoinder to some strictures of mine in a 

 previous issue. I note what the editor says in a foot-note, 

 and while I could very easily and effectually dispose of the 

 writer's contentions, I shall not ask the editor to continue a 

 discussion which might, as he remarks, " evolute into one on 

 religious beliefs," though it certainly would not on my side, 

 for I think I could discuss the great scientific and philosoph- 

 ical questions in issue on their merits, without getting down 

 to creeds or beliefs. 



In these times, when evolution has become the " working 

 hypothesis " in all secular science and philosophy, it is quite 

 impossible to thoroughly discuss the range of subjects prop- 

 erly embraced even in bee-culture, without getting onto just 

 such ground as Bee-Master, Dr. Miller, and myself now oc- 

 cupy in this queen-clipping discussion. And it is certainly 

 not very creditable to the intelligence and liberality of the 

 confraternity of apiarian readers, that they cannot stand the 

 friendly discusion of a great question like this, which grew 

 directly out of a legitimate subject for a bee-journal, and 

 hence comes fairly within its province. I know "Bee-Master," 

 my opponent ; he is a gentleman of education and ability; 

 and as I know myself equally well, I know that in discussing 

 this matter there would be no unfriendly feeling or word — no 

 personality whatever — nothing that a reasonable man, not 

 afraid of open discussion, need fear. Nevertheless, the editor 



feels that readers would object to it, and deems it his duty to 

 shut down. Under such circumstances I do not blame him, 

 but I do not, I must confess, think much of the reader who 

 would blame him for continuing the discussion. 



However, as already remarked, I shall not attempt to go 

 contra to the editor's wishes by continuing the discussion ; but 

 " I rise to a point of order," or a " question of privilege," and 

 must make a correction and explanation, as my opponent has 

 misunderstood me on the vital point of all. He says : "Mr. 

 Pringle dogmatically asserts that I cannot hold the two oppos- 

 ing philosophies of Evolution and Creation," and goes on at 

 some length to show how he can hold them both consistently. 

 But I did not say that, or mean that. This is what I asserted : 

 " He is astride two opposing philosophies — which are utterly 

 irreconcilable. These two philosophies are evolution and 

 special creation. He may take either one, and I shall not 

 complain, but in trying to ride both horses, he must have a 

 fall." 



My opponent is confounding creation with special creation. 

 They are quite different, and I supposed my opponent was 

 sufficiently well read in modern science and modern thought 

 to know the difference, Special creation means that every 

 species of animal and plant was separately and specially cre- 

 ated, and that man, of course, was so specially created, ac- 

 cording to the Mosaic cosmogony. Evolution, on the con- 

 trary, teaches and proves that species are evolved from each 

 other — that they have all come from one or more original, 

 primeval protoplasmic forms, and that man is no exception to 

 the rule, but is himself a product of evolution instead of being 

 a special creation. The general or original creation which 

 Bee-Master probably means, is the creation of the primeval 

 protopUtsm, or, at most, of a few orignal forms of life, evolu- 

 tion doing all the rest. Such original creation I neither affirm 

 nor deny, and I freely admit that between it and evolution 

 there is no necessary conflict, while between special creation 

 and evolution the conflict is utterly irreconcilable. 



The reader will thus see that my opponent's whole argu- 

 ment was built upon what I did not assert — "dogmatically" 

 or otherwise. Having thus merely made a correction and ex- 

 planation without argument, I reluctantly stop, having that 

 editorial foot-note before my eye. Selby, Ont. 



[We regret that Mr. Pringle " stops reluctantly," for it 

 seemed to us that there was nothing to be gained by a con- 

 tinuation of the discussion of clipping queens' wings. The 

 principal objection to clipping, offered by Bee-Master, was so 

 utterly imaginative and theoretical that to use much space in 

 considering it would be a clear waste. And surely Mr. Pringle 

 would not desire the readers of the Bee Journal to wade 

 through a lot of evolution theory, which, at best, is mighty 

 dry reading to most people, and quite unprofitable, especially 

 to so practical and busy people as bee-keepers are supposed 

 to be. Space in the Bee .Journal is altogether too limited to 

 discuss subjects so deep and far-reaching as those found in 

 the domains of spiritual, political or evolutionary thought. 

 We propose to leave those subjects to periodicals devoted 

 specially to them. Please all bear in mind that this is a bee- 

 paper. — Editors.] 



Self-Hiving Arrangements and Queen-Traps. 



BY ADRIAN GETAZ. 



All the self-hivers invented so far are comprised under 

 two different types. The first one (Fig. 1) has the self-hiver 

 separated from the main hive by a piece of queen-excluding 

 zinc and a queen-escape. Another zinc at the entrance of the 

 hiver retains the queen in the self-hiver when swarming oc- 

 curs. The hive may be a regular hive, or a box containing a 

 few empty combs to hold the swarm temporarily. It has been 

 placed in front, under, and, I think, sometimes at the side of 

 the main hive. 



I constructed them about as shown in Fig. 1. The en- 

 trance of the main hive was larger than usual ; there was 

 ample space between the main hive and the zinc conducting 

 into the hiver. Both zincs were of large size, not less than 

 35 to 40 square inches. All that was so the ventilation of 

 the hive should not be hindered. 



Such hives will hive full swarms every time, and take up 

 nearly all the field bees, as whenever the bees come in they 

 will stay in the hiver rather than go beyond ; that is, after the 

 hiver is occupied by the queen and the swarm. 



The trouble with that style of hivers occurs between the 



