340 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



unqueening. then a still younger larva 

 must have been chosen." 



I make no question now that this 

 reasoning would be conclusive were all 

 the elements that enter into the matter 

 considered and given their proper and 

 due weight; but are they? In answer to 

 this, I have to acknowledge that in the 

 argument there is an inclination, no 

 doubt unintentional on the part of the 

 doctor, to pare down the length of the 

 time between the hatching of the egg and 

 the emerging of the queen. He makes 

 that time twelve days. I should put it at 

 thirteen. The egg hatches in somewhat 

 less than three days, and I never could 

 make out in my investigations that a 

 queen emerges in much if any less than 

 sixteen days. 



Secondly, although he properly allows 

 about twenty-four hours for the bees to 

 become satisfied that they are queenless, 

 he takes no account of their want of prep- 

 aration to furnish at once proper food to 

 a larva designed for a queen. This is a 

 most important point. No one who has 

 watched the larvae fed for queens under 

 the circumstances under consideration 

 can have failed to note the scantiness and 

 watery appearance of the food. Of course, 

 the length of time lost by the bees on 

 account of want of preparation is, with 

 our present knowledge, rather indefinite; 

 but I judge from the appearances of the 

 queens produced under such circumstan- 

 ces, if the bees are allowed to have their 

 own way entirely, that it should be fixed 

 at at least a day. These considerations, if 

 I have not given them too much weight, 

 would allow the selection of a larva at 

 least four and a half to five days old, and 

 still give no more time than needed for it 

 to emerge in ten days "Crom the time of 

 queenlessness. 



Thirdly, another element that enters 

 into this calculation of time, and which 

 seems not to have been considered by the 

 doctor, is the difference in the rapidity 

 with which the worker and the queen de- 

 velop. The queen matures in three- 

 fourths the time required by a worker; 

 and, counting from the time when the 



cells are capped, only about half as long. 

 The worker develops more slowly. What 

 is the significance of this? Just this: 

 That a queen's emerging at a time not less 

 than ten days from the time of unqueen- 

 ing is no proof that the larva from which 

 the queen was produced was taken by the 

 bees at the normal parting of the ways 

 between the worker and the queen, and 

 devoted from that point by ample and 

 proper supplies and attention to the of- 

 fice of queen. This proposition is in ex- 

 act contradiction to the doctor's position 

 as set forth in his argument. Which is 

 correct ? We may agree that a larva fully 

 devoted to royalty when three days old 

 will emerge as a queen ten days later; 

 but if taken at five days of age would she 

 emerge in eight days ? W^e must consid- 

 er that where three days old, at most, she 

 was set apart for the production of a work- 

 er, and adopted the comparatively slow 

 pace that required fifteen day's time to 

 complete her full developement. When 

 her destiny is changed at five days of age 

 she has not only lost time already but her 

 pace for the future can be onlj^ partially 

 mended. Her nourishment and care will 

 necessarily be very defective, the time be- 

 fore her cell is capped is so short, so that 

 it could be manifestly unreasonable to ex- 

 pect her to reach her goal in less than ten 

 days. 



Besides this, my experience, obtained 

 by actual inspection of brood when the 

 bees are beginning efforts to replace a lost 

 queen, and of the queeus thus produced, 

 fully confirms me in the opinion that the 

 argument referred to is unsound. Many 

 a time have I seen the bees beginning 

 attempts to make queens out of larvae al- 

 most old enough to be capped over; and 

 many a queen produced from such larvae, 

 having one or more of the characteristics 

 of the worker, have I examined. One I 

 remember had the head of a worker — 

 many had ill-shaped bodies; and all were 

 of small size. 



I recall that a year or two since the 

 doctor was much exercised as to whether 

 queen excluders would exclude, and 

 whether queeu traps would entrap, and I 



