180 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



May 



a near relative of the wild thyme, but 

 none the less valuable. 



Gray's Manual describes it per- 

 fectly as wild marjoram. 



One statement in this article inter- 

 ested me gi'eatly, that the farmers 

 keep their cows on pastures covered 

 with this plant in summer, for I had 

 the impression it was of little value 

 for cattle or sheep and farmers re- 

 garded it as a pest. If it should prove 

 a good forage plant as well as a good 

 honey plant it should add much to the 

 unproductive pastures of New Eng- 

 land, and other sections of like soils. 

 I have hesitated about putting it 

 where it would spi'ead over my neigh- 

 bor's land to his injury. Where it 

 has become well established it seems 

 to spread with considerable rapidity. 

 Presumably the birds cari-y the seed, 

 which are quite small, to new loca- 

 tions. It looks now as though it 

 would cover a large territory in New 

 England and New York in time and 

 prove of great value to beekeepers; 

 but let us all recognize it by its 

 right name, wild marjoram. 



CORRECT NAME FOR THE WILD 

 THYME 

 A Reply to Mr. Crane 



By Frank C. Pellett 



The plant which was described on 

 page 53 of our February issue, to 

 which Mr. Crane refers, is correctly 

 named "wild thyme," the scientific 

 name of which is Thymus Serpyl- 

 lum. Wild marjoram, (Origanum 

 vulgare) is a near relative of the 

 thyme and there seems to be much 

 confusion in regard to the two plants. 

 Undoubtedly the specimens sent by 

 Mr. Crane to Lovell were marjoram, 

 while the plant we describe is thyme. 

 Both were introduced from Eui-ope 

 and both are found in New England 

 and New Yoi-k. Since there has been 

 so much confusion regarding not 

 only thyme and marjoram but also 



other related plants, such as savory 

 and pennyroyal, we have refeiTed the 

 matter to Dr. Trelease, botanist of 

 the University of Illinois, and asked 

 him to help present the matter in such 

 a way as to make clear the differ- 

 ences. Doctor Trelease has kindly 

 sent the photographs and drawings, 

 which appear herewith. By referr- 

 ing to the photographs of the plants 

 it will be noted that they are more or 

 less similar in appearance and it 

 would, perhaps, be difficult to deter- 

 mine from the photograph alone, in 

 every case, which plant a particular 

 specimen might be. However, in the 

 drawings, Doctor Trelease has 

 sketched the differences in the leaves 

 and flowers so that one should have 

 no difficulty in making a con-ect iden- 

 tification. 



Regarding thyme, Doctor Trelease 

 writes as follows: 



"In Europe Thymus Serpyllum, 

 the classic thyme, occurs in a number 

 of forms which have been considered 

 as distinct species by some botanists. 

 One group of these has the square 

 stems haii-y all around; another has 

 the hairs on opposite sides of the 

 stem, not immediately below the 

 leaves but breaking joint with them. 

 Your plant is of this group, and ap- 

 pears to be the variety ovatus, which 

 does not produce sterile runners such 

 as we are accustomed to seeing on 

 thyme, and grows as much as a foot 

 and a half high." 



While all four of these plants are 

 of interest to the beekeeper as 

 sources of nectar, it is probable that 

 the thyme is most important since it 

 is present over a sufficient area to 

 furnish a liberal amount of surplus 

 honey in several localities. 



LARGE HIVES 



By E. S. Miller 



Speaking of large hives, we tried 

 this year, as an experiment, with 



about 40 colonies, the plan of giving 

 the queen the range of two 10-frame 

 hive-bodies, placing an excluder and 

 supers above. In the light of this ex- 

 periment, I am not recommending the 

 plan. Picking out a quart or more 

 of queen-cells every eight or ten days 

 for six weeks was not to my liking, 

 especially since it required ths exam- 

 ination of twenty combs in each hive. 

 And then to find that a swarm had es- 

 caped from nearly every hive and 

 that one-third or more of the colo- 

 nies had become queenless, somewhat 

 dampened my enthusiasm for this 

 nietliod of "swarm prevention." 

 Indiana. 



1. Pennyroyal. Mentha Pulcgium. 



2. Summer Savory. Saturci hortcnsis. 

 4. Thyme. Thymus Scrfyllum. 



"WHO PAYS THE FIDDLER?" 



By E. C. Shoemaker 



During the past two or three years 

 the cost of equipment, and supplies 

 has become a very important factor 

 for the progressive beekeeper to take 

 into consideration when trying to 

 determine what price he should place 

 on his crop of honey. Five or ten 

 years ago this question was just as 

 important, as the relations between 

 market on product and investment in 

 equipment and supplies were not 

 greatly different in ration from fig- 

 ures prevailing during the two-year 

 period ending about July 1, 1920. 

 During the years 1918 and 1919 the 

 increase in cost of supplies was of 

 no great consequence to the average 

 small producer as the steady increase 

 in wholesale and retail honey mar- 

 kets enabled him to market his crop 

 at a reasonable profit, even though, 

 in some cases he was branded as a 

 profiteer by the buying public; this 

 condition, however, not being in evi- 

 dence a great deal until the year just 

 closed. 



The year of 1920 opened up bright 

 with promise for all lines of business, 

 and beekeepers everywhere looked 

 forward to an especially remunera- 

 tive season. The first six months in 

 almost every line were record break- 

 ing, and neither the business inter- 

 ests nor the public in general realized 

 we were on the crest of the "Wave 

 of Prosperity,' and, therefore, the 

 slump came unexpectedly and caught 

 manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers 

 and jobbers in many instances with 

 high-priced stocks on hand. The 

 whole problem of merchandising re- 

 solved itself into one question, "Who 

 pays the fiddler?" Many manufac- 

 turers wisely chose to dispose of part 

 of their high-priced stocks before the 

 close of 1920 and revalued their re- 

 maining stocks on the basis of mar- 

 ket or below rather than at cost, thus 

 assuming part of the loss themselves 

 and only passing part of the balance 

 to the consumer as the market stead- 

 ily declined. 



This article owes its inception to 

 the arguments used in recent adver- 

 tisements appearing in the American 

 Bee Journal and Gleanings defending 

 the policy of manufacturers of bee 

 supplies in their failure to reduce their 

 prices for the season of 1921. One 



