246 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



of the literary ability of apicultural cor- 

 respondents and editors as well as of their 

 susceptibility to improvement. Referring 

 to my having pointed out some literary 

 infelicity he says I seem to have started 

 in to reform their grammar, and goes on, 

 to quote his exact language, to encourage 

 me thus: "He [I] will have a large job, 

 and likely his trouble for his pains." I 

 by no means look upon the case as either 

 so bad or hopeless as Brother York seems 

 to think it. I think their grammar very 

 good, and that they are so bright as to 

 quickly correct points in which they 

 fail. An editor who so lately "started 

 ovit to reform" spelling should not so 

 suddenly despair on the point of gram- 

 mar. 



Editor York also takes me to task for 

 using the letters "A. B. J." for American 

 B-e Journal. I beg his pardon. .\ man's 

 name should be written and pronounce 1 

 as he chooses to have it, and the name of 

 a man's publication should also, I sup- 

 pose, appear as he likes it. But I was 

 innocent. I thought it was a great dis- 

 tinction to be conscions that one's journal 

 enjoyed the eminence of being known 

 everywhere by the initals of its name 

 simply. But it is so unusual to have 

 to write the full name in a reference, 

 in parenthesis, that I hope he will have 

 the grace to yield to that extent. 



L.\PEER, Mich. July iS, 1S98. 



EXXRKCXED, 



ABBREVIATING THE NAMES OFJOUKNALS. 



This Practice, When Copyhi^ Articles, Does 

 not Always Give a Sufficient Credit. 



Bro. York of the American Bee Jour- 

 nal copies my editorial of last month in 

 relation to the abbreviation of the names 

 o4 journals, and comments u])on it as 

 follows: — 



Had Mr. Hutchinson read our remarks 

 on page 425 more carefully, he wouldn't 

 have written one-quarter of the above ex- 

 tract, for we plainly said that we objected 

 to the use of the letters "A. B. J.," when 

 meaning the American Bee Journal, /;/ 

 public print. What do we care what peo- 

 ple call it in their private correspondence 

 or conversation ? Whv, they can call it 

 " A. B. J.," " B. A. J.V' " j. A. B.," or 

 anything else they please, outside of pub- 

 lic print, and we won't object at all. 



Really, it is the editors of some of the 

 bee-papers that need to learn that giving 

 the initials of a paper from which they 

 copy is no credit all — ueither to them- 

 selves nor to the papers they copy from. 



"William Zenas Hutchinson" is not a 

 parallel illustration at all, so need not be 

 noticed further than to say that of course 

 no editor would be guilty of copj-ing an 

 article that was written b}- Mr. Hutchin- 

 son, and then sign it "W. Z.," or "W. Z. 

 H.," and call that a proper credit. But 

 we are now talking about publications, 

 and not about "chummy" names. 



We said 7ve were the highest authority 

 as to how our journal should be referred 

 to /;/ public print. To this statement Mr. 

 Hutchinson says: "I suppose that is true" 

 — he isn't quite sure of it. If that isn't 

 "cool" we don't know what is. If ice 

 are not the highest authority in this mat- 

 ter we think it is time we are finding out 

 who is. Surely, not a man w^lio hasn't a 

 cent invested in the American Bee Jour- 

 nal. 



Now, we don't want any editor to print 

 in full the words "American Bee Journal" 

 just because he regards our feelings, nor 

 because he wishes to please us — those 

 reasons are too weak to consider at all. 

 We want him to do it because it is only 

 shnipXe Just ice so to do — because he has 

 no I'ight to copy original articles or ideas, 

 and then not give full and intelligent cred- 

 it for them. 



On page 20S of the July Review, second 

 column, after referring to something Mr. 

 Dadant .said in this paper about feeding, 

 Mr. Hutchinson has "A. A. J.," 162." 

 That might mean ".American Ant Jour- 

 nal," if there were one by that name; but 

 of course he meant the American Bee 

 Journal. Then why not say so, if Mr. 

 Dadant's remark was worth mentioning 

 in the Review ? 



We stand ready — as we have always 

 stood — to credit other bee-papers for what 

 we take from their columns in just the 

 way their editors wi.sh us to credit them; 

 and we have a right to expect that the 

 editors of the other papers will recipro- 

 cate that readiness. 



