496 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



pregnation of flowers by their own pol- 

 len." Again, "There is a class in which 

 the ovules absolutely refuse to be fertil- 

 ized by the pollen from the same plant, 

 but can be fertilized by pollen from any 

 other individual from the same species. 

 There are also very many species which 

 are partially sterile with their own pol- 

 len." 



He quotes approvingly a German bot- 

 anist — Sprengel — who wrote as early as 

 1793 : "It appears that nature has not 

 willed that any one flower should be fer- 

 tilized by its own pollen." 



He also quotes Andrew Knight as say- 

 ing, " Nature intended that a sexual in- 

 tercourse should take place between 

 neighboring plants of the same species." 



Again Darwin says : "With ordinary 

 plants the pollen of another variety, or 

 merely of another individual of the same 

 variety is often strongly prepotent over 

 its own pollen when both are placed at 

 the same time on the same stigma." 



In summing up his conclusions, among 

 other things he says: "It has been 

 shown in the present volume that the 

 offspring from the union of two distinct 

 individuals, especially if their progeni- 

 tors have been subjected to very differ- 

 ent conditions, have an immense advan- 

 tage in heidht, weigJit, constitutional vig- 

 or and fertility over the self-fertilized 

 offspring from one of the same parents." 



"The effects of the close inter-breed- 

 ing on animals, judging again from 

 plants, would be deterioration in gen- 

 eral vigor, including fertility, with no 

 necessary loss of excellence of form ; 

 and this seeois to be the usual result." 



The limits of this article will not ad- 

 mit of further quotations. If I am 

 wrong in my views of the subject under 

 discussion, I must be content with so 

 distinguished company. 



Forest City, Iowa. 



Taking Bees Ont of a Repository, Etc. 



Written for the American Bee Journal 

 BY M. M. BALDRIDGE. 



My bees were put into the house-cellar 

 last fall on Nov. 15th, and taken out 

 this spring on March 3rd. Had I been 

 at home I should have taken them out 

 the last day of February, or first day of 

 March, as both days were warm enough 

 for the bees to fly in safely — being over 

 50^ in the shade. 



Last year I put out my bees on March 

 lOth, that being the first warm day we 

 had in March. 



I put 28 colonies into the cellar last 

 fall, and took out 27 live ones this 

 spring, all, on an average, being appar- 

 ently in very good condition — combs 

 bright and free from mold and moisture. 

 One colony I found dead, died from star- 

 vation. 



Since the bees were put out-doors, 

 there have been several good, warm days 

 for them to fly, and they began to carry 

 in pollen yesterday— very early for this 

 region. To-day (March 16th) they are 

 bringing home considerable pollen, and 

 from soft maple, I judge. 



The temperature out-doors, the day 

 the bees were put out, was about 60° in 

 the shade, and in the cellar 54^. The 

 temperature in the cellar throughout the 

 winter ranged from 44^ to 55^. At 

 both extremes the bees seemed to be 

 quiet and in normal condition. 



Owing to drouth last year after the 

 first of August, and the want of honey 

 to gather, my bees quit breeding very 

 early, except a few that I fed consider- 

 ably. This caused them to go into win- 

 ter quarters with too many old bees, and 

 too few young ones, and, in consequence, 

 I found more dead bees thrown and car- 

 ried out of hives in the repository than in 

 former winters. What the result may 

 be I cannot yet say, as I make it a rule, 

 of late years, not to disturb the combs 

 or overhaul the bees until they have 

 been out-doors a month or more. This 

 is to avoid losing queens by the " ball- 

 ing" process. 



In my opinion bees " ball " the queen 

 mainly because she takes fright and 

 runs. This she is not so apt to do when 

 filled with eggs. 



THE "simplicity" FRAME. 



Dr. Miller states, on page 329, that 

 the standard Langstroth frame is 93>^x- 

 11% inches, but to accommodate the 

 use of the one-pound sections, the frame 

 w^as made ^^ inch shorter, and is known 

 as the "Simplicity" frame. 



The Doctor is correct as to the proper 

 length of the standard Langstroth 

 frame, but wrong about the Simplicity. 

 Instead of being % inch shorter, it is 

 that much longer, or 17^ inches. A. I. 

 Root must be credited with having made 

 the change, though he seems to think he 

 did not. If I mistake not, he claims that 

 he sent to Father Langstroth for a sam- 

 ple hive, and that he found it provided 

 with frames exactly 17?^ inches in 

 length. I have always thought that he 

 simply " forgot " and that he made the 

 change, and for the reason given by Dr. 

 Miller. 



St. Charles, Ills. 



