rjune 12, 1902. 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



375 



worthless because they ruin any colony they are introduced 

 into. 



Well, another will follow this in due time, if I am 

 spared. Orange Co., Calf. 



Putting on Sections Getting Early Swarm.s. 



BY G. M. DOOUTTI.K. 



A corrcspoiulcnt sends in a couple of questions which lie 

 wishes answered tlirough the columns of the American lice 

 Journal, the hrst of which reads as follows : 



"I am a hcginncr in apiculture and wish to work wholly fur 

 section honey. When is it best to put sections on a hive 

 having a new swarm?" That will depend somewhat on how 

 you work, the size of the swarm, etc. If the swarm is large, 

 and you have full sheets of foundation in the brood-frames, 

 it is well to put on a super of sections at the time when 

 the swarm is hived. And I think that I sliould fill the sec- 

 tions with foundations, as well as the brood-frames. But 

 should you fill the sections with foundation, and use only 

 starters in the In-ood-frames, the queen would be likely to go 

 into the sections to deposit her first eggs, unless a quceii- 

 €.xcluder was used, in which case she could not get into the 

 sections, no matter how the hive was fi.xed below. 



With nothing but starters in the brood-frames, and no 

 queen-e.xcludcr used, then it is best to wait about putting on 

 sections till the queen has commenced laying in the new- 

 comb built below, when the sections can be put on without 

 fear of Ijrood in them. 



The plan I like the best, and the one I use more largely 

 than any other, is to contract the brood-chamber to two- 

 thirds its usual size, using only frames having starters in 

 them of foundation about half an inch wide, on top of which 

 is placed a queen-excluding honey-board. The new hive 

 thus prepared is set on the stand of the parent colony while 

 the swarm is out in the air or clustered on a limb, and the 

 sections are now removed from the parent colony and placed 

 over the queen-excluder on the new hive, when the swarm is 

 hived in this new hive, now on the old stand, after which 

 the old or parent colony is placed at some distance off on a 

 new stand which we wish it to occupy. 



In this way we not only get all the bees with the swarm 

 into this new hive, but also all of the old or field bees which 

 are in the fields at the time .of swarming, as well as all the 

 field-bees that come out from the old hive within a day or 

 two later, as they return to the old location which they had 

 marked, not realizing that their place of abode has been 

 removed. This throws so large a force into the new hive 

 that work does not stop in the sections at all, and, as a rule, 

 prevents all after-swarms from the parent hive. As the 

 larger part of the bees go to work in the sections, and have full 

 room there for the honey they are securing, storing it in the 

 partly filled sections removed from the old hive, comb-build- 

 ing progresses in the frames below only so fast as the queen 

 can- occupy the cells with eggs, and in this way, we, as a rule, 

 secure the frames in this contracted brood-chamber filled with 

 nice, straight worker-combs, at a less cost to us than the 

 purchasing of foundation and fitting it into wired frames. 

 But in any other procedure I think it best to fill the frames 

 ■with foundation, for if we do not the bees build altogether 

 too much drone-comb for the future prosperity of the colony. 

 The second question is as follows: "I am desirous of 

 having just as many early swarms as possible. Would there 

 be a gain or loss along this line by putting on the surplus 

 arrangement or supers of sections early in the season?" It 

 might be safe to say that, taking early swarms into considera- 

 tion, there would be a disadvantage, or tendency toward a few 

 days delay in swarming, if the surplus arrangement is put 

 upon the hive before the bees swarm. Heat is one of the 

 elements in forcing early swarms, hence, by putting on the 

 surplus arrangement before the hive is crowded with bees, 

 much of the heat from the colony will be distributed among 

 the sections, which would to a certain extent retard swarm- 

 ing, as it also does brood-rearing? 



If early swarms is of the utmost importance, even if we 

 have to sacrifice other values, then it is best to keep the 

 top of the hive as close as possible, and stimulate the bees by 

 feeding, spreading the brood, and otherwise. Later on, when 

 the hive becomes crowded with bees, and preparations for 

 swarming are begun, the placing on of sections may not 

 delay it. But if we count surplus honey a gain, then I can 

 conceive where there would be a gain in putting on sections 



as soon as our main honey-harvest opens, as it is often the 

 case that, with all our crowding and desiring early swarms, 

 the bees will obstinately refuse to swarm, when we not only 

 fail in accomplishing what we are after, but lose a part or all 

 of the lionev crop we might have had if we had put on the 

 sections at the proper time. 



I verily believe that during the past, when conducting 

 e.\i)eriments along this line, I have sustained more loss by 

 trying to force swarms by crowding the bees, than by giving 

 them too much room. Theref<jre, it has always been my 

 advice of late years to place the sections on the hives at the 

 proper time, just when the first flowers of our main honey 

 harvest are opening, no matter whether swarming is desired or 

 otherwise, resting assured that, with the majority of bee- 

 keepers, more swarms will issue, when doing our l)cst to 

 secure a good crop of section honey, than we had hoped 

 for, or at least fully enough to satisfy any reasonable persons. 

 And if this should not be the case, it is very easy under our 

 present enlightenment to make a few "swarms" after the 

 harvest of white honey is over, which will, as a rule, build 

 up and secure enough dark honey for wintering. This latter, 

 it seems to me, is much more reasonable than to sustain a loss 

 of white honey through fear that our bees will not swarm as 

 much or as earlv as we desire. Onondaga Co., N. Y. 



Telegony^The Influence of the Male on Succeed- 

 ing Offspring Not Sired by Him ; 

 is the Theory Proven? 



BY PROF. A. J. COOK. 



If telegony be true at all, I believe it speaks with muffled 

 voice and never in loud accents. May I present the matter to 

 your readers, as it is very important in practical affairs .' The 

 belief in it once reduced the value of a cow in my herd many 

 dollars. I believe there were no just grounds for this loss. 



The theory of telegony is very important to breeders. 

 The name originated quite recently with Weismann. Telegony 

 teaches that a taint is given a female by mating with a male 

 of different breed or race. To illustrate, a mare bears a 

 foal from a jack. If the theory of telegony be true, any sub- 

 sequent foal from that mare, even though sired by a horse, 

 will very likely show mule characteristics. Again, a shorthorn 

 cow is crossed with a Jersey bull. All future offspring, even 

 from pure shorthorn, are likely to show the Jersey taint. 



That there was some such theory in the minds of people 

 as early as Jacob's time is possibly true. The theory has 

 been regarded by many of our scientists as a correct one. back 

 even to 1820, when Lord Morton wrote to Dr. W. H. Wools- 

 ton, President of the Royal Society of Great Britain, the 

 results of his famous experiments. These experiments were 

 substantially as follows : 



A nearly pure .\rabian mare was coupled with a quagga. 

 The resulting offspring was a female hybrid quite intermedi- 

 ate in character between the sire and the dam. The mare was 

 afterward bred to a pure Arabian horse. The resulting filly, 

 in the Avords of Lord Morton, and also a colt a year younger, 

 were fine specimens of the Arabian breed, as fine as could 

 be expected when only fifteen-sixteenths Arabian ; but in 

 the color and the hair of their manes they bore striking 

 resemblance to the quagga. The stripes seemed quite conclus- 

 ive, but the evidence from the mane and tail was less so. 

 This testimony from Lord Morton has been regarded as con- 

 clusive by many scientific men. Darwin, in referring to this 

 case, says, "There can be no doubt that the quagga affected the 

 character of the offspring subsequently got by the Arabian 

 horse." It is significant, however, that Darwin wrote after- 

 ward that telegony occurred rarely ; for he stated, some years 

 before his death, that it was "a very occasional phenomenon." 

 Agassiz believed in telegony. He was fully jgersuaded, 

 to use his own words, "that the act of fecundation is not an 

 act which is limited in its effects, but that it is an act that 

 affects the whole system, the sexual system especially, and in 

 the sexual system the ovary to be impregnated hereafter is so 

 modified by the first act that later impregnations do not efface 

 the first impressions." 



Romanes also believed that telegony was of occasional oc- 

 currence. His researches were quite extensive. He sums up 

 his conclusions in the following words: "The phenomenon is 

 of much less frequent occurrence than is generally supposed. 

 I doubt if it occurs in more than one or two cases in a hun- 

 dred." 



Herbert Spencer believed in telegony. He not only has 



