1894 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



3()3 



have any binding force unless it bo the, keeping 

 of an equal niiniberof each class together un- 

 der the same treatment for a series of years; 

 and owing to the unstable footing which api- 

 culture has as yet secured at our experiment 

 stations, such a plan would have small chance 

 of success unless it were acted upon on his own 

 account by some bee-keeper who, like yourself, 

 still has faith in the virtues of the ten-frame 

 hive. 



So the question between the two hives is a 

 very complicated one, and is not simply one be- 

 tween what the bees say on the one hand and 

 theory on the other. On each hand are both 

 facts and theory. In each case the bees say 

 something; and in each, what they say must 

 be supplemented by a vigorous excercise of the 

 reasoning faculty, or no sound conclusion can 

 be reached. So I affirm that we do know some- 

 thing about it now. The bees have spoken — 

 not. Indeed, to the main question directly, for, 

 as has been seen, that is too complicated to ad- 

 mit of a categorical answer unless we first put 

 them in a position to give such a one by mak- 

 ing extensive preparation for it, but to detached 

 points that are material to the general issue, 

 and decisive of it. But, of course, we must be 

 careful of our process of reasoning. 



You say, "I beg you will believe 



— and I am sure you will take my word for it — 

 that I am not saying a word for the sake of 

 mere argument." Of course, I take your word 

 for it; but I can not help seeing that, through 

 the deceitfulness of language, I suppose, you 

 have permitted your pen to say what is more 

 unfair and more dangerous than talking for tlie 

 sake of mere argument. What sort of tangle- 

 leg does your pen (or is it your typewriter?) im- 

 bibe that could have made it charge me with 

 the statement that " we'll get all the bees we 

 want by June 15th in an eight-frame hive"? 

 What I did say was, " We want all the bees we 

 can induce the colony to rear" up to that point 

 of time. Your pen also puts the correct state- 

 ment alongside the false one, so that it also 

 practically charges me with inconsistency or 

 want of intelligence. 



Then what could have possessed your type- 

 writer to record this: One " might ask whether 

 the bees had ever stated in a positive manner 

 that a lot of brood late in the harvest was a 

 damage " ? That is worthy of an adept at par- 

 ty-platform construction! Wliat a blessed 

 state of unanimity it is calculated to produce! 

 for, of course, a lot of brood then would be no 

 damage but an advantage! Whether we favor 

 a live, eight, ten, or twelve frame hive, we 

 would all agree in wanting a lot of brood then. 

 But one might ask, " IIow big a lot?" and the 

 strife would be renewed. 



I feel pretty sure that the soundest argument 

 would have little effect in solving the question 

 so far as you are concfrned if you are habitual- 

 ly willing to use such an ultra-diplomatic ex- 



pression as a shield; and I am just as sure you 

 would not expect me to be satisfied with such 

 an elastic argument. 



Now, I admit that here I feel the ground 

 trembling under my feet, for I understand that 

 you are editing a dictionary of apicultural 

 terms, and I have noticed recently on several 

 occasions that you have shown an inclination 

 to " fix " the meaning of words to suit your own 

 ideas without entertaining much respect for 

 usage, so I am in doubt whether "lot" will not 

 turn up as an apicultural term with some new 

 signification, and I nightly dream of the pit 

 preparing lor him who is so foolhardy as to at- 

 tempt an argument with the dictionary man. 



Of course, I take your word for it when you 

 affirm that you say nothing for mere argument; 

 but I feel a mighty strain when I read the place 

 where, in response to the reason I give for my 

 statement tliat more bees will be produced ear- 

 ly in the eight-frame hive, viz., that there is 

 less space to be kept warm, you say: "If that 

 counts for any thing, then a six-frame hive is 

 still better." Better for what, pray? If you 

 mean better for rearing brood early, I assent as 

 a matter of course; but what significance has 

 that fact in this argument? If you mean bet- 

 ter for comb honey. I as certainly dissent. It 

 looks a little as though you meant to get this 

 admission from me, and then turn on me, and, 

 by the use of the same kind of logic, insist that, 

 since I admit that an eight-frame hive is better 

 for comb honey than a six-frame hive, I am 

 bound by an analogous course of reasoning to 

 admit that a ten-frame hive is better for that 

 purpose than an eight-frame hive. But, don't 

 do that. We must admit that there is a Scylla 

 as well as a Charybdis to be shunned. A hive 

 may be too large as well as too small. 



Once more : In the paragraph wherein you 

 speak in derogation of theories, it seems to me 

 you confound two ideas to the detriment of 

 clear conceptions of truth. You place the the- 

 ory of parthenogenesis and the theory of the 

 eight-frame hive on a level with the theory of 

 last year's non-swarmer and last year's hiver. 

 You may well call the latter pretty theories 

 which the bees refuse to accept; for the theo- 

 ries, though fine, we can clearly see, do not pro- 

 vide for all the conditions as they exist in our 

 practical apiaiies; they are not accepted by 

 practical intciUigent bee-keepers; indeed, such 

 men clearly see, without the trouble of a test, 

 that they could not be successfully used; but 

 because such theories are and will be promul- 

 gated, furnishes no reason for including the 

 former in the same condemnation, for they are 

 supported by sound reason; they have been 

 subject to the scrutiny of practical men for 

 many years, and the fraternity accept them. 

 Vox populi vox Dei. Of course, in one sense I 

 may say of them correctly, " I don't know;" 

 but that is not in accordance with the ordinary 

 usage of the language, but only in the sense 



