334 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



a flight, as they have been confined 

 for a number of weeks ? 



I have 121 colonies in the apiary that 

 I wish to move, and I took some 8,000 

 pounds of surplus honey from them last 

 season. They were all in fine condition 

 on Oct. 10th, when I put them away. I 

 fed back just before packing them, some 

 600 pounds of honey, and weighed them 

 up, all told, to 60 pounds. So far they 

 appear to be wintering splendidly to all 

 appearances. This locality is in all re- 

 spects first-class, this section of country 

 being well adapted for white clover, 

 Alsike, bue-gloss, and any amount of 

 basswood. F. Finch. 



Southwold Station, Olit. 



It may be best for you to wait until 

 spring has advanced enough so that you 

 will bo safe in expecting the bees to fly 

 as soon as put on their new stands, or 

 two or three days later. It certainly 

 does bees no good to be disturbed in the 

 winter, and it may do harm. 



Cause of the Differenee in Size 

 of <4ucen-Bee8. 



Query 862.— 1. What Is the cause of the 

 difference in the size of queen-bees ? 3. Are 

 the larger queens to be preferred to the 

 smaller ? 3. Why ? 4. Is It in the bee-mas- 

 ter's power to insure the production of large 

 queens?— New York. 



Jl 1. Better nursing. 2. Yes. 4. Yes. 

 — Dadant & Son. 



1. Food and care. 2. As a rule, yes. 

 4. Yes, practically. — J. H. Labrabee. 



1. Strength of colony and amount of 

 food. 2. I don't know. 4. I think so. 

 — Eugene Secor. 



1. The same as makes the difference 

 in the size of people. 2. Not necessarily. 

 4. Yes.— C. C. Miller. 



1. I don't know. 2. As a rule, yes. 

 3. They are better developed. 4. I don't 

 know. — J. M. Hambaugh. 



1. I think the cells in which they 



grow. 2. I prefer them. 3. Expect 



better results. 4. I think it Is. — Jas. 

 A. Stone. 



1. The size of queens may be in- 

 creased or diminished by breeding with 

 that end In view. 2. I prefer them. 4. 

 It is. — A. B. Mason. 



1. I don't know. 2. I prefer large 

 queens, every time. 8. I think they are 

 more prolific. 4. Yes, by careful selec- 

 tion. — C. H. DiBBERN. 



1. The difference in method of rear- 

 ing. 2. As a rule, yes. 3. They are 

 apt to be stronger, better developed, 

 more prolific, longer lived. 4. Yes. — 

 James A. Green. 



1. I don't know. 2. No. 3. They 

 have proven to be no better than 

 smaller ones. 4. No doubt, to some ex- 

 tent, by selecting and breeding In that 

 direction. — S. I. Freeborn. 



Such effects are brought about by 

 various and numerons causes ; but as a 

 usual thing a large queen is the most 

 valuable. A good, healthy, active queen 

 is to be preferred above all. — Will M 

 Barnum. 



1. Food, temperature, parentage, and 

 general thrift. 2. Yes, as a rule. 3. 

 For the same reason that a well-devel- 

 oped specimen of any animal is better 

 than a " runt." 4. To a large extent. — 

 P. H. Elwood. 



1. The strain and breeding. 2. Yes. 



3. If you are a practical man, just stop 

 and think why a fine, large, strong, vig- 

 orous queen is better than a small, in- 

 ferior queen. 4. To a great extent, yes. 

 — H. D. Cutting. 



1. I am not a queen-breeder, and don't 

 know. 2. I would say yes. 3. I should 

 expect them to be more prolific, would 

 be easier found, and more sure to be 

 kept in the brood-nest by an excluder. 



4. I think it is.— E. France. 



1. Sometimes it is the season, and 

 sometimes the way they are reared. 2. 

 Yes. 3. They are stronger, and I think 

 usually more prolific, and I should ex- 

 pect a larger race of workers from such 

 queens. 4. Yes. — Mrs. L. Harrison. 



1. Inherited characteristics, and early 

 feeding while yet larvaj. 2. If more 

 prolific, of first-class workers, which 

 should be the best of quality. 4. I think 

 we could breed In any direction. Mere 

 size is not alone a desirable end. — A. J. 

 Cook. 



