246 



AMERICAN BEE lOURNAL 



April 17, ]902 



and those in the chaff hive are shut up, and unless we disturb 

 them they will not come out, because the inside of the hive is 

 cold, and everything is cold, and the result is thev will very 

 often suffer and die, when bees in some other hives, which are 

 seemingly exposed, come out all right. 



{Continued next week.) 



i Contributed Articles. 



^^"tfcpci^r'srtfr'gr'pr'pfsr^^ 



No. 2— Improving the Races of Bees. 



BY AUKIAN GETAZ. 



IN a previous communication (pajife SS), I insisted on in- 

 breedingf. showing that in other Ijinds of domestic ani- 

 mals inbreedinfj could be, and had been, practiced suc- 

 cessfully, provided all defectuous animals were rejected, 

 otherwise the defects would go on increasing all the time, 

 as well as the good qualities of the stock. 



In breeding for improvement it is supposed that the 

 apiarist has selected the best stock obtainable ; it may be 

 supposed that he has succeeded in improving it more or less. 

 Then it is evident that atiy outside stock would be inferior, 

 and, if introduced, would cause deterioration. We may set 

 down as a rule, " No introduction of inferior stock under 

 any condition." 



Should we begin with two queens of different stocks — 

 one for the drones and one for the queens, or use the same 

 for queen and drones ? 



I don't know as it would make much difference, provided 

 both are equally good. In starting with two different stocks, 

 more variations could be expected, but less certain of trans- 

 mitting the qualities already possessed. 



I would choose some of our best breeds of five-banded 

 bees. Some of them are as good and as gentle as any ordin- 

 ary Italians, and have the advantage of capping their honey 

 whiter. I have tried them. 



We must control the drones. That is, arrange so that 

 our queens cannot mate with any other drones than those 

 of the colony we have selected. There is no need of con- 

 trolling the individual drones except to destroy the under- 

 sized or otherwise defectuous ones. There is nothing in the 

 appearance of a drone that can guide us or show us what 

 will be the honey-gathering or other qualities of his daugh- 

 ters ; and therefore no choice can be made, except that the 

 only drones flying should be those of the stock selected. 



There is only one way to do it, that is, to postpone the 

 rearing of queens (and drones) until the honey-flow is over, 

 and the general destruction of drones has taken place. 



There are several advantages in adopting that plan. 

 One is that the young queens have a whole honey season to 

 be tested. Right here, the question might be raised whether 

 a one-year test is enough. I think those decidedly inferior 

 could be removed after the first year test. Those accept- 

 able, especially if they are nearly equal, might have a 

 second year test before the final choice is made. After a 

 decidely superior queen is obtained, I should use her for 

 queens and drones, until a better one is reared. If the best 

 two queens were nearly equal, I think I would use both. 

 Contingencies will probably occur. For instance, the best 

 honey-gathering stock might be decidedly vicious, and a 

 crossing with a gentler stock might be necessary. In esti- 

 mating the value of a queen, the strength of the colony and 

 all the circumstances having an influence on the amount of 

 surplus obtained should be taken into consideration. 



The rearing of queens will be discussed from a technical 

 standpoint in a future contribution. 



INFLOENCB OF THE FEED. 



Some writers have insisted that the worker-bees can 

 transmit to the young bees some of their qualities, such as 

 honey-gathering, gentleness, etc., either directly through 

 the feed they prepare for them, or indirectly through tlie 

 feed they give to the queen. 



The question is a very important one. If that opinion 

 is true, then, in order to improve our present races of bees, 

 we will have to select not only the queens and drones, but 

 also the workers. Needless to say that the problem would 

 be considerably complicated. 



Fortunately, it is and error. To the uneducated that 

 opinion seems very plausible ; to the one possessing even 



an elementary knowledge of physiology the error will ap- 

 pear at once. 



Only those who have tried it know how difficult it is to 

 explain a scientific subject in a way that even the least 

 educated can understand it. Nevertheless, I will try it. 



We have here, say, two plats of land. One is poor clay 

 land, the other is rich loam. In the clay we sow some 

 wheat, and in the loam we plant corn. Would you say that 

 the clay was the cause of the wheat being wheat and the 

 loam was the cause of the corn-plant being corn ? 



Would you say that it the corn had been planted in the 

 clay, it would have acquired some of the wheat characteris- 

 tics, and if the wheat had been sown in the loam it would 

 have acquired some of the corn peculiarities ? 



No, you would not. The land or feed has an influence 

 on the development of the plant, but not on its characteris- 

 tics. The wheat will be wheat in whatever ground it is 

 sown ; but it will be puny and weak on poor land, and tall 

 and thrifty on rich land. So with the corn. 



L,et us take another example at the other end of the line: 

 Frequently in the Southern States, when a mother cannot 

 nurse her baby, a colored wet-nurse is employed ; but it has 

 never been observed that she could transmit any " nigger 

 characteristics " to the baby through her milk. 



Sometimes a wet-nurse is not obtainable. Cow or goat 

 milk is resorted to. Would you say that some of the meek- 

 ness of character of the cow has been transmitted to the 

 child through her milk, or that some of the contrariness of 

 the goat has been acquired in the same way ? 



No, you would not. And any man who would advocate 

 such a transmission, would not have to go very far before 

 being asked if he had not been raised on ass's milk himself. 



Yet some one may insist and ask if there is not some 

 possibility of the worker-bee adding (something) to the feed 

 that might have some effect similar to that of the egg of the 

 female and the sperm of the male. No, there is none. 

 There is nothing in the honey-sac or the stomach of the 

 worker that can produce a living germ similar to the egg of 

 the female or the male germ. There are only glands pro- 

 ducing substances similar to the saliva or the stomach- 

 juices of the higher animals. And if there was, these germs 

 would be useless. Put a piece of wood in the fire and burn 

 it. You say it is destroyed. No, it is not ; it is only trans- 

 formed — a part of it is now ashes, and another part smoke 

 and gases. 



So it is with the food. You eat meat, fruit, milk, etc. 

 All these substances go through several transformations 

 fully as great as when you burned that piece of wood. Some 

 finally become flesh, some bones, some nerves, etc.; some 

 are actually " burned" in the lungs and produce the heat 

 necessary to the life of the body. So it is with bees. And 

 any living germ that might chance to be among the feed 

 would be transformed (or destoyed as such) as effectively as 

 the rest. 



Full details and proofs cannot be given here on account 

 of lack of space. They can be found in the text-books on 

 physiology. 



An argument often presented is this : The queen never 

 gathers honey, never stings, never feeds the brood. How 

 can she then transmit to her workers qualities that she 

 never possessed? Is it not reasonable to suppose that 

 " somehow or other" these qualities come from the worker? 



The argument at first seems to be pretty strong, yet, 

 after all, there is nothing in it. If you look at it closely; 

 you see that the meaning of it is that the offspring of the 

 queen must necessarily be like her. 



But what are the facts ? A queen not mated lays eggs 

 as well as one that is mated. According to the above argu- 

 ment such eggs should produce only queens. But, instead 

 of that, they produce only drones, and nothing but drones. 

 This seems to me conclusive, and shows that the progeny of 

 the queen is not necessarily limited to being similar to her- 

 self. 



EXAMPLES OF THE WORKERS. 



Very often we have colonies of bees addicted to robbing, 

 or exceedingly cross. The apiarist changes the queen in 

 hope to correct the evil. To his surprise (if he is a novice) 

 the workers from the new queen are as bad as those of the 

 old one. 



Yet nothing else could be expected. Bees follow each 

 other's example almost invariably. Let a bee, in a time of 

 scarcity of nectar, find some honey, . She sips a load, hur- 

 ries home and starts back for more. The other bees of the 

 same colony, noticing her movements, follow her. By and 

 by the other colonies also notice th^ proceedings and take 

 part in the operations, until the whole apiary is in an up- 



