THE AMERICAN BEE-KEEPER. 



131 



hive.'' It was more practical than the 

 H iiber leaf hive, but too complicated 

 and expensive for general use, A few 

 years later Geo. Wheeler patented a 

 second hive and sold "rights" 

 through the country. 



Then came the Laugstroth hive and 

 that of the lamented Moses Quinby. 

 Prior to 1861 there was no periodical 

 devoted to bee culture published in 

 America. The American Bee Journal 

 was the pioneer. It was very ably 

 edited and still maintains the high 

 standard. Prior to the advent of the 

 J.. B. J. the Albany Cultivator and 

 Country Gentleman was the medium for 

 bee correspondence or bee literature. 

 In point of priority Mr. Quinby fol 

 lowed Mr. Weeks and Rev. Laug- 

 stroth followed Mr. Quinby. The first 

 communication from Mr. Quinby was 

 published in the April issue of the 

 Cultivator in 1841, page 76, and it was 

 an inquiry and was responded to by 

 Mr, Weeks which is the prelude to 

 the millennium we are now enjoying. 

 Mr, Quinby continued a valuable cor- 

 respondence for a long period. Mr. 

 Langstroth did not, according to my 

 recollection, appear as correspondent 

 until several years later. As book 

 authors they made their advent in 

 1853 and their Avorks were about 

 equal in merit. Mr. Langstroth wrote 

 occasionally for the bee-keeper's press 

 but not to the extent as did Mr. Quin- 

 by. In 1852 Mr. Langstroth patented 

 a hive but Mr. Quinby never adapted 

 any of the patented features of the 

 hive. He once wrote "Mr. Lang- 

 stroth has seen fit to patent some of 

 the devices of his hive but I rather 

 not make use of them." Mr. Quinby 

 devised the hive known as the Quinby 



hive, which is considered by expert 

 bee-keepers to be a superior hive. 

 Our western friends who have learned 

 to use the Langstroth hive, not hav- 

 ing practical knowledge of the Quin- 

 by hive, claim that the latter hive is 

 the most popular of any. They are 

 correct if they speak of localities, but 

 in New York state the case is differ- 

 ent. Mr. Quinby was uot at all in- 

 debted to the genius of Mr. Lang- 

 stroth in devising the Quinby hive. 

 On the contrary Mr. Langstroth ac- 

 knowledges that he acted on sugges- 

 tions drawn from Mr. Quinby in con- 

 versation about hives, in which Mr. 

 Quinby remarked that the long flat 

 hive is the same as the tall hive laid 

 down, and that he had a few such 

 hives in which he wintered bees as 

 safely as in the tall hives. This sug- 

 gestion and information prompted Mr. 

 Langstroth to settle down on a form 

 of hive, the one known as the L. hive. 



The inspired idea of a hive formed 

 of several sections, each section con- 

 taining one card of comb which forms 

 a sectional part of the comb in a hive, 

 and so formed as to be a separate part 

 of the hive, and removable at will, is 

 the invention of blind Frances Huber. 

 Why not give all the honor to whom 

 it is due ? Every so-called " remova- 

 ble comb frame hive," of whatever 

 form or name, is nothing more or less, 

 in principle or invention, than the 

 Huber hive. Huber hinged together 

 several comb frame sections to form a 

 line, but he formed hives with the 

 sections by clamping several together 

 on the "long idea" plan of C. L. 

 Adair. The Huber invention dates to 

 about 1796. 



In 1834 Maj. W. Augustus was the 



