176 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



fluenced in our choice of frames by the 

 condition in which the combs may be 

 found if we g'o out and buy bees of 

 farmers or those not posted in bee cul- 

 ture. The real question is, what frame 

 will allow us to handle bees in our 

 apiaries with the least trouble and 

 annoyance — handle them the quickest 

 and easiest. 



rfHji««^J««'»rf» 



Who Discovered the "Baby" Nucleus 

 System ? 



When Mr. W. H. Laws, something- 

 more than a j'ear ago, described in the 

 Review the "bab}'" nucleus system 

 of securing the fertilization of queens, 

 he said that he believed it was the 

 first time tha^' it had been publicl}' de- 

 scribed, with the exception of an arti- 

 cle that had appeared several months 

 previous in the American Bee-keeper. 

 Perhaps it would have been better if 

 Mr. Laws had mentioned at the time 

 that the systein was the invention or dis- 

 covery of Mr. C. B. Bankston. As he 

 called attention to the article in which 

 Mr. Bankston had described his 

 methods, I felt that he had g^iven suffi- 

 cient credit, but Mr. Bankston, and 

 Mr. Pharr, who was associated with 

 Mr. Bankston, have both written and 

 protested that the Laws article g-ave 

 the impression that Mr, Laws was the 

 inventor of the system. Now, while I 

 think Mr. Laws had no intention what- 

 ever of robbing any one of deserved 

 honor, I am more than willing to say 

 that Mr. Bankston wrote to me and 

 described his invention more than a 

 year before the Laws article appeared, 

 but I was unable to catch the real 

 method and worth of the S3'stem, and 

 so wrote Mr. Bankston. He referred 

 me to Mr. Laws, who had been using 

 it some time. I wrote Mr. Laws, but 

 he wished to give it further trial before 

 writing his experience for publication. 

 Just about this time, Mr. E. L. Pratt 

 of Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, was 

 working out a "baby" nucleus system. 



The Review would not knowingly rob 

 any man of any credit that is his due, 

 and if it has given a wrong- impression 

 as to who was the inventor of the 

 "baby" nucleus system, it is more than 

 willing to correct it. 



Keeping up the Strength of Shaken 

 Swarms. 

 A natural swarm of bees is much 

 weaker in numbers at the end of three 

 weeks than when first hived, as no 

 young bees have yet been hatched. 

 When I was engaged in comb honej^ 

 production, I hived a swarm on the old 

 stand, setting- the old colony to one 

 side. This gave all of the flying- field- 

 bees to the swarm. A week later the 

 old colony was moved to a new loca- 

 tion, when all of the bees that had 

 marked this location as their home, 

 joined the swarm, giving it another 

 boost. In this way the strength of 

 swarm (where the sections were) was 

 kept up. A shaken swarm might be 

 strengthened in this same way, in fact, 

 if no increase is desired, it is possible 

 to keep on adding- the newly hatched 

 bees to the swarm either by moving the 

 old hive from one side to the other, or 

 by shaking- the bees in front of the new 

 hive. Mr. Stachelhausen tells in the 

 American Bee Journal how he man- 

 ages this matter with shaken swarms. 

 He had practiced this method of get- 

 swarms, and was pleased with it 

 except in this one respect, viz., that the' 

 swarms kept g-rowing- weaker and 

 weaker during- the three weeks follow- 

 ing- shaking, because no young- bees 

 were hatching out. The brood in the 

 hives was daily increasing-, requiring 

 more workers to give up other labors 

 for that of nursing brood, thus reduc- 

 ing the field-force. If the bees hatch- 

 ing in the old hive could only have 

 been transferred to the swarm, all 

 would have been well. Mr. Heddon's 

 method of preventing- after-s warmings, 

 which was the plan that I followed, as 



