1897 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



285 



used is half as bad as you have painted it, is it 

 right to use comb foundation at all? After we 

 have gone on all these years fllling our sections 

 with full-sized sheets, why have you not lifted 

 up your voice against it before? If it was all 

 right to use a certain amount of it, why does 

 the character of the material become so very 

 objectionable when it is proposed to double the 

 amount used? If the material is as bad as you 

 say, then let us know it. and let us as honest 

 men use not even the smallest starter in sec- 

 tions. 



I am not specially interested in the new prod- 

 uct; but along with thousands of others I am 

 interested in the market for comb honey, and I 

 am sorry to say that I believe you have done 

 your share toward striking the heaviest blow at 

 the comb-honey market it has ever received; 

 and this, even if not the slightest change is 

 made in the foundation used. For what you 

 say, if it applies at all, applies to the thinnest 

 foundation that may be made, even without 

 any side walls at all; and let a belief in what 

 you say get a lodgment in the minds of con- 

 sumers, then good-by to the market for comb 

 honey. 



Marengo, 111. 



[See Editorials.— Ed.] 



■ — I m * 



DRAWN COMB DEFINED. 



DEEP CELLS, AND THE ADVANTAGE OF SHAL- 

 LOW CELLS. 



Dr. C. C. Miller:— I believe you are our lexi- 

 cographer of words pertaining to bees and bee- 

 keeping, and I wish to appeal to you for a def- 

 inition of "drawn comb." >The editor of 

 Gleanings, in the Feb. 1st' issue, adefines: 

 "Drawn; comb— comb that has ^^beeno leveled 

 down to cells about ^g" of an inch deep." Two 

 other writers, following, seem to agree with 

 this definition. The third writer appears to 

 make a distinction between "drawn comb" 

 and "bait comb." They all refer to natural 

 comb made by the bees, and cut down.^jl don't 

 exactly know how cutting it makes "drawn 

 comb " of it. ^ My idea of " drawn comb " here- 

 tofore has been that, when artificial comb 

 foundation was given to the bees, it was drawn 

 out (lengthened) without addition of new wax, 

 or very little of it, and became "drawn comb." 

 If the former definition is correct, what are we 

 to call the last product? Is it proper to call 

 any natural comb "drawn comb"? I have 

 not seen your new dictionary. I have only 

 Webster, and find "drawn butter," but no 

 "drav/n honey " nor "drawn comb." 



Thaddeus Smith. 



Pelee Island, Ont., Feb. 15. 



[Dr. Miller replies:] 



I don't assume to be lexicograpner for the 

 bee-keeping fraternity, having been chosen to 



say in only one book what was the customary 

 usage of bee-keepers. I have some doubts 

 whether I know enough to clearly define 

 "drawn comb." I think I could point to a 

 specimen and say clearly, "That's drawn 

 comb," and then to another, saying without 

 hesitation, "That's comb foundation." But 

 I'm not so sure that I could clearly draw the 

 line between foundation and drawn comb. As 

 the word is ordinarily used, I think all comb is 

 called drawn comb. Ordinary comb founda- 

 tion is not called comb, but foundation. Give 

 a piece of foundation to the bees, and when 

 they have drawn out the side walls to the depth 

 of H inch we should probably agree in calling 

 it drawn comb, although we would not call it 

 so when they have just commenced nibbling on 

 the side walls. Just at what point to begin 

 calling it drawn comb is something like decid- 

 ing on what day we are to cease calling a 

 human being a boy and call him a man. I 

 think the term " drawn " generally adds noth- 

 ing to the meaning, but is used to give empha- 

 sis to the distinction between comb and comb 

 foundation. In a super I put a bait of comb, 

 and you can hardly misunderstand that expres- 

 sion; but by way of emphasizing the fact that 

 the bait section contains comb and the other 

 sections only foundation, I say the bait contains 

 "drawn comb." I should say that the term 

 as used by bee-keepers applies to all comb, 

 whether the cells be two inches or more deep 

 or very shallow. You see I'm a little careful to 

 say "very shallow," without giving any exact 

 measurement. I should also say that the term 

 " drawn " has no reference to whether the sam- 

 ple is natural or artificial. 



The editorial remark to which you refer is 

 probably the one on page 78, " What I mean by 

 drawn comb is some that had been leveled 

 down to cells about ^s in. deep." Evidently 

 the editor did not mean that as a definition of 

 the term, but simply as explaining the particu- 

 lar kind of drawn comb used in that case, and 

 exactly the same idea would have been given 

 if he had said, "The drawn comb used had 

 been leveled, etc." If he had meant it for a gen- 

 eral definition he would have used " has " in- 

 stead of "had," saying, "What I mean by 

 drawn comb is that which has been, etc." 



Messrs. Crane and Snell, to whom you refer, 

 hardly limit the word to comb with cells only 

 ^4 deep: indeed, Mr. Snell expressly speaks of 

 drawn comb 1}4 inches thick— that is, having 

 cells % inch deep. Mr. Crane thinks drawn 

 combs should not be used with cells more than 

 % deep, but that does not say they would not 

 be drawn comb before cutting down. Mr. 

 SchaefHe makes a distinction between " drawn 

 comb " and " bait comb " in the heading of his 

 article, but I suspect that heading was written 

 by the editor. Between the two I think there 

 is no possible distinction as to kind. Every 



