THE AMERICAN APICULTURIST. 



they will meet unrelated drones. 

 By the new methods of queen- 

 rearing we enn rear from one 

 queen almost any number of daugh- 

 ters and I would much ratiier 

 have a fine virgin queen liom a 

 queen-breeder's best stock than a 

 fertile queen to improve my own 

 stock. 



The idea advanced by Mr Dem- 

 aree "that the drone is a son of his 

 mother only and cannot be a full 

 brother to a queen" will be found* 

 to be a great mistake as applied to 

 fecundated queens. A drone can be 

 "a son of his mother only," when she 

 happens to be a virgin layer. To 

 this extent only is Mr. l)'s state- 

 ment true. 1 prefer to accept the 

 views of Mr. Cheshire to those of 

 Dr. Dzierzon in this matter. That 

 there is an interchange of ele- 

 ments or properties of the sper- 

 matic tiuid in the spermatheca of a 

 laying queen affecting materially 

 her drone progeny I have long held. 

 And of this fact the more 1 see of 

 the drones of cross-bred queens the 

 more I am contirmed in this view. 

 Prepotenc}', however, is extended 

 from the male over the female off- 

 spring and fiom the female over 

 tlie niale offspring and this is a 

 general law in heredity, but sub- 

 ject to man}' exceptions from un- 

 known modifying agencies. Yet 

 this proves nothing for the Dzier- 

 zon theory and I deny its truth ex- 

 cept in so far as it relates to virgin 

 queens. Even if the theory be 

 true we should have a form of in- 

 and-in breeding in all apiaries 

 wliere the drones are unrestricted 

 by perforated zinc that should be 

 aveited if we would secure the 

 liighest results in the breeding of 

 superior bees. 



Neio Pliiladelpliia, Ohio. 



For the American ApicuUurist. 



SHALL WE PLANT FOR 

 HONE Y? 



A. C. TVUKEL. 



A NEW HONEY PLANT. 



Mk. R. L. Taylor's article in 

 Vol. V, No. 11, entitled "Shall 

 we Plant for Honey?" may apply 

 to HIS locality, but if he has trav- 

 elled, lie must have observed that 

 there is a vast territory lying out- 

 side the boundary lines of Michi- 

 gan. 



There are millions of acres of 

 rich prairie land naturally devoid 

 of timber — honey -producing — 

 such as he has cited. Hence, his 

 remarks can apply only to a few 

 favored locations and are calcu- 

 lated to mislead. A person resid- 

 ing in Michigan or New England 

 cannot lay down a rule governing 

 all parts of the world at large. 



If Mr. T. had visited this part 

 of Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado or 

 Dakota last season, during the 

 prevalence of the drought, he would 

 not have indicted that article. 



Shall we plant and wait until 

 honey-producing trees yield suffi- 

 cient nectar for our bees, or culti- 

 vate honey plants? 



This question will admit of an 

 affirmative answer only. 



Note this misnomer : "Who may 

 hope to win in a race with nature" 

 in the production of honey plants 

 he asks, as if the same infallible 

 law of nature did not operate in 

 the production of aZZ honey plants, 

 as well as those trees and shrubs 

 that yield nectar? Wherein does 

 the law of nature differ, as applied 

 to the growth of white clover, as- 

 ters, golden-rod and other autumn 

 flovvers,or summer blooming plants, 

 as " Melissa," (igwort, Cha|)man's 

 honey plant? " We cannot com- 

 pete with nature." Of course not. 

 There can be no competition with 



