108 



TUB AMEIUCAN AinCULTUEHST. 



pany would be acceptable. Leav- 

 ing Starrie to watch the apiary, I 

 was soon on the ground, and if 

 ever I enjoyed any one event more 

 than another, it was certainly the 

 assisting to hive that swarm of 

 bees. They behaved beautifully, 

 and I wa$ just familiar enough with 

 the work, to understand perfectly 

 well how to handle them, but not 

 familiar enough, to make the hiv- 

 ing of a swarm, an old story. La 

 Petite had given them a nice, shel- 

 tered, sunny corner, and they had 

 thriven remarkably under her care. 

 She seemed very proud of her new 

 colony, and finally decided to al- 

 low a second to issue. A third, 

 and, I think a fourth came out and 

 were returned. 



By this time, my own apiary was 

 wide awake with swarms, and I 

 seldom visited La Petite. She be- 

 came proficient enough to hive and 

 return the later swarms, with the 

 assistance of La Mere, and finally 

 to cut the queen cells. From the 

 prime swarm and the old colony, 

 she took 125 pounds of surplus, in 

 one-pound sections ; and in Novem- 

 ber, placed three colonies in winter 

 (juarters. 



Sheboygan Falls, Wiscoyisin. 



For the American Apiculturist. 



HIVES I HAVE USED. 



W. F. Clarke. 



I respond to Mr. A. Norton's re- 

 quest on page 54 of the March is- 

 sue of the American Apiculturist, 

 and cheerfully give my experience 

 with different styles of hives. This 

 I do, mainly to set the ball rolling, 

 for 1 tliink, with .him, a friendly 

 discussion on this topic likel}^ to 

 do good, and I think, with you, 

 that a perfect hive has never l)een 

 invented. Perhaps it never vv^ill 

 be, but I believe we shall yet ap- 



proximate more closely toJi)errec- 

 tion in this matter, and what more 

 likely to bring this about, than a 

 comparison of the defects and ex- 

 cellences. 



The Thomas Hive. 



This was the first I tried, :uid 

 for its day and generation it was 

 an excellent hive. It was in the 

 spring of 1864 that 1 began its 

 use, and 1 continued using it for 

 several years, meantime tiyiug 

 some others. The objections to it 

 were its large size, great de[)th, 

 complicated swivel cleats at each 

 end of the top-bars, and non-adap- 

 tation to raising comb honey. 



The Mitchell Hive. 



Not the American of that name, 

 but a Canadian, S. H. Mitchell of 

 St. Mary's, Oht. The frames were 

 shaped thus : — 



They were very large, did not 

 balance well, and the hive had 

 most of the same objections as the 

 Thomas. 



The American Hive. 



Too large, not convenient for 

 opening and handling, and the 

 outer case slipping down over all ; 

 objectionable. 



The Quinby Hive. 



Too large, too clumsy ; too heavy 

 to move around ; with a boiling- 

 over full stock of bees, hard to 

 close up without killing some ; 

 difficult job for me to fix up it 11 

 serene after opening out ; and, 

 withal, too costly. 



The Jones Hive. 



A simple, cheap, handy, com- 

 mon-sense hive, but too deep to 

 suit my taste, which has always. 



