142 



T^E AMERtCA}^ BE^-K^&PFlk. 



August 



In conversation with an up-to-date 

 man, a bee-lieeper who neglects to read 

 the journals devoted to his interests, 

 will invariably "give himself away" in 

 the opening sentence. There is no dis- 

 guising a "back number." 



We are pleased to note a decrease in 

 the number of red wrappers to go out 

 this month. We appreciate the thought- 

 fulness of our readers in thus relieving 

 us from the necessity of using a great 

 amount of this colored stock. You see. 

 red wrappers "come high." 



"In the spring and summer provide 

 the bees with plenty of honey-making 

 food and pure water, and do not keep 

 them near orchards on which insecti- 

 cides are used. A field of alsike, white 

 or crimson clover, with a flower garden 

 near by, will remove all necessity for 

 the bees seeking the orchards for nec- 

 tar." It is not clear whether the fore- 

 going, from one of our agricultural ex- 

 changes, is an inspired effusion of some 

 visionary amateur, or a case of de- 

 lirium tremens. 



A. J. Wright, Bradford, N. Y., in 

 Gleanings, rises in defense of the mos- 

 quito-hawk, or dragon-fly, claiming 

 that in his locality, at least, they are 

 no enemy of the bee, while they work 

 much good in the destruction of nox- 

 ious insects, upon which they prey. 

 The article is in reply to an item in 

 that journal from a Florida contribu- 

 tor, whose experience has been that the 

 dragon-fly is a great pest in the apiary, 

 with which our own experience accords 

 perfectly, as stated in The Bee-Keeper 

 for March. Mr. Wright's article shows 

 him to be an observing and apprecia- 

 tive student of nature which, being con- 

 sidered in opposition to the statements 

 of the Florida writer, leads to the con- 

 clusion that he has had to deal with a 

 very different species from those re- 

 ferred to in the Item which called forth 

 his interesting remarks. 



The Bee-Keepers' Review concludes 

 a very complimentary editorial notice 

 of our July number by advising its 

 readers to send for a copy. The Re- 

 view minces nothing, nor hesitates to 

 proclaim its sentiment on any matter 

 of interest to bee-keepers, through fear 

 of incidentally advertising a contem- 

 porary. But then, a journal which is 

 in a class by itself can afford to be 

 thus generous; a rather enviable pos- 

 ition of independence, which in nowise 

 effects our gratitude. Thank you. 

 Brother Hutchinson; thanks! 



"M. Devauchelle having said that 

 laying workers deposit eggs only in 

 drone cells. Dr. Miller replies in I'Api- 

 culteur, that such is the fact when 

 drone cells are present, but in the ab- 

 sence of drone cells they use worker 

 cells, in that case laying one egg in a 

 cell regularly, so that the work cannot 

 be distinguished from that of a fertile 

 queen until the brood is sealed." — 

 American Bee Journal. Is this a case 

 of "difference of climate," or "error in 

 translation?" Of all the cases we have 

 seen, a worker has rarely succeeded in 

 depositing her egg upon the base of a 

 worker cell, as a queen invariably does. 



Our venerable and esteemed contem- 

 porary, the American Bee Journal, in 

 commenting on the change of editorial 

 management, with reference to The 

 Bee-Keeper, and, evidently, with kind 

 intent, several months ago expressed 

 the wish that we might not find that 

 we had undertaken an "up-Hill" job. 

 Chancing, after a lapse of six months, 

 to again observe this friendly remark, 

 we are moved to say that since that 

 time The Bee-Keeper has had an up- 

 hill road. That is to say, it has been 

 continually on the up-grade. In other 

 words, it has been steadily ascending 

 the hill of success. We have had no 

 "boom" — we do not approve of them — 

 but it has been a source of encourage- 

 ment to us to note the daily additions 



