148 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOUENAL. 



deposited unimpregnated, and the result was a 

 drone in a worker cell. 



The practical advantage to be gained, suppos- 

 ing this theory t.i be true, is this. We conld pre- 

 vent drones from being produced by cutting 

 down the drone cells to a shallower depth. Still 

 the bees might rebuild them to the full depth in 

 a short time and frustrate the plan. 



In conclusion, I think it sufficient to say that 

 instinct impels a queen bee to lay eggs, and tc 

 lay them in the cells of honey comb, and most of 

 them in worker cells, and I assume that she is 

 so organized that her eggs are impregnated by 

 the very act of laying, whenever she lays in cells 

 of any depth up to the full depth of a worker 

 cell, without any exercise of will or volition on 

 her part. Also that she is so organized that 

 when she attempts to lay in any deeper cell, the 

 egg is necessarily and inevitably unimpregnated. 



R. BlCKPOKD. 



Seneca Falls, N. Y., Dec. 24, 1867. 



[For the American Bee Journal.] 



Side-Opening Hives. 



The correspondents of the December number 

 of the Journal seem to be very prolific in fault- 

 finding with side-opening hives; and as it seems 

 to be principally directed at the American hive, 

 let us examine the matter on that basis. One 

 has tried it on his long low hives, and does not 

 see much difference; yet he finds cases in which 

 it is an advantage to have his hives side-open- 

 ing. If he will try the American hive in its 

 proper form, I think he will find other and ma- 

 terial advantages. Another finds the fixed frames 

 glued together, and causes a jarring in prying 

 them apart. A very slight movement of the 

 frame disengages it entirely, which is easily ef- 

 fected by crowding the blade of a knife between 

 two frames without any jarring whatever; while 

 in the Langstroth hive the frames are glued to 

 the rabbet, and in disengaging the first frame or 

 two they have to be moved sidewaj's, one frame 

 toward another, crowding and irritating the l)ees. 

 Again he finds it difficult to put the frames in on 

 account of crushing the bees. A very little 

 smoke would obviate that difliculty. The irreg- 

 ularity in the comjjs usually occurs at the top of 

 the frames in the store combs, and causes no 

 trouble when placed back in their former posi- 

 tion; but if placed in another hive, or their posi- 

 tion changed, they should be trimmed with a hot 

 knife. Even in the Langstroth hive it takes but 

 little irregularity to require the leaving out of a 

 frame; and then the disposition of the bees to 

 occupy all the space will increase the irregulari- 

 ties. There are but few cases in which tliere is 

 a necessity for looking at a particular comb. The 

 accidental breaking of a comb may be one; and 

 in that case the advantage of a side-opening hive 

 is obvious. In looking for a queen in the Lang- 

 stroth hive, it is the better plan to commence 

 taking .out the iramcs at the side of the liive, 

 giving a chance to separate the frames where the 

 bees are principally clustered, rather than lifting 

 one frame from between two others where the 

 bees are clustered thicUy, disturbing them more 



and being more likely to alarm the queen and 

 render the search for her more difficult. 



But your correspondent, D. M. W., seems to 

 have the most trouble, and I think frequently 

 referring him to the writings of his friend Lang- 

 stroth, may coax him into good humor. In tho 

 first place, he thinks no one could claim a pa- 

 tent for movable frames. An improvement in 

 the form or method of using them might possi- 

 bly be patented, as three of the six claims of Mr. 

 Langstroth' s reissue are for that and nothing 

 else. Secondly, he thinks no one would claim a 

 patent on the upright form of hive. Mr. Lang- 

 stroth in his work on pages 339 and 330, says: 

 "A tall hive in proportion to its other dimen- 

 sions has some obvious advantages," yet "it 

 would be impossible to use frames in it to any 

 advantage;" and in a note, says "the deeper the 

 frames the more difficult it is to make them hang 

 true on the rabbets, and the greater the difficulty 

 of handling them without crushing the bees or 

 breaking the combs." If any one has attained 

 the desideratum, evidently but ineffectually 

 sought for by Mr. Langstroth, viz: the tall form 

 of hive in wliich frames could be used, he should 

 be lenientlj' dealt with by Mr. L.'s friends and 

 allowed his own time to answer their queries. 



lliirdly, In coming to the conclusion that no 

 one could obtain a patent for side-opening hives, 

 I think he has fallen into an error, perhnps from 

 reading an editorial in the October number of 

 the Bee Journal, in reference to the time when 

 Mr. Langstroth made them, which he might 

 have avoided if he had read carefull,y the circu- 

 lar, in which he says Mr. L. gives the claims of 

 his patent, as it is there distinctly stated that it 

 was in 1854 that he made them and his hive was 

 patented in 1853. In 1854, Mr. Langstroth tried 

 but failed to adapt to his patented hive the side- 

 opening form, which the German apiarians have 

 used for thirty years, and which is now used by 

 a greater number of them; though Prof. Varro 

 says "movable sides have been coherently rea- 

 soned out of use long, long ago." Yet the hive 

 used by the Germans seems to be of the worst pos- 

 sible form, being long and low, and opening at 

 the front or rear, requiring the frames to be 

 placed across the hive. And this was tlie form 

 in which Mr. Langstroth made them, (as appears 

 from a note at the foot of page 187 of his work), 

 and opened at both ends, thus requiring a sta- 

 tionary honey -board or some other contrivance 

 for keeping the sides in place, which would ren- 

 der it a very clumsj^ apology for a side-opening 

 hive. Certainl)' the inventor of the American 

 hive is entitled to the thanks of bee-keepers for 

 having by a side-opening hive adapted the mo- 

 vable frame to the tall form of hive, notwith- 

 standing the ineffectual attempt of Mr. Lang- 

 stroth to adopt the side-opening principle to his 

 long low hive may have rendered side-opening 

 hives unpatentable. 



Fourthly, The using of two boxes for surplus 

 honey, he thinks, is an idea of Mr. Quinby's. 

 If so. it is not the only good idea jmblishcd hy 

 him for the benefit of the public, v\'ithout asking 

 a patent. 



Fifthly, I do not discover anything in the 

 work alluded to claiming the American hive to 

 be vreather-proof, except its being well clamped 



