248 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 1. 



Yes, Mr. Editor, that testimony of I. S. 

 Tilt, p. 208, is right to the point, and not like 

 Niver's. Mr. Tilt thinks I should throw up 

 the sponge and confess section-holders best. 

 Now, friend Tilt, I have a favor to ask of you. 

 Please tell me ivhy I should do as you say. 

 After trying both, the balance of evidence 

 with me runs the other way. I'm ready to 

 change to wide frames without top-bars, just 

 as I changed from them with top-bars, when- 

 ever I can see reason for the change. [That 

 does me good. I like to see you take bad 

 medicine without making a wry face. Now, 

 friend Tilt, give him another — ////. — Ed.] 



" One trouble with the deep frame is that 

 the bees will eat away all the stores next to 

 the top where it is the warmest, and the bees 

 sometimes die because the clusters are left 

 high and dry."— Footnote, p. 214. Sa-a-ay. 

 I saw that statement once before, and I thought 

 the man didn't know what he was talking 

 about. Do bees honestly do that way ? [What 

 is the matter with the statement in question ? 

 Explain ivhy you thought the man did not 

 know what he was talking about. " Do bees 

 honestly do that way ? ' ' The}- do indeed, sir, 

 sometimes, at least in our apiary, even on 

 frames as shallow as the Langstroth; and I 

 figure it would be worse if the frames were 

 deep. But look here, doctor — you always 

 winter in the cellar, while ive almost invaria- 

 bly winter outdoors. See? — Ed.] 



You're all straight in your data, with 

 one exception, page 205, Mr. Editor, about 

 separators, but wrong in your conclusions. 

 You're right in saying I throw away separators 

 after using one season because it costs less to 

 buy new than to clean old, but not to take the 

 naughty kinks out of them. The naughty 

 kinks are only in bad separators; they're there 

 from the start, and you can't get them out. 

 A good plain separator is " good for years " if 

 you clean it, and a fence separator will be 

 thrown away after being used one year if you 

 can buy new cheaper than to clean. See? 

 [No, I do not see. It will never be cheaper 

 to throw away a fence separator and buy a 

 new one than to clean the old one. While 

 fences will probably be cheaper than now, I 

 anticipate the labor of cleaning, if cleaned at 

 all, will be less — a good deal less — than the 

 labor of cleaning the old-style wooden sep- 

 arators. — Ed.] 



That's a pretty fight, p. 212-' 13, over 

 the plain section and fence, but it seems to me 

 there are some misses and fouls on both sides. 

 Fight fair, loving brethren; fight fair. [You 

 are very unfair, doctor, to accuse either one of 

 us of not fighting fairly, and then softsoap us 

 both by calling us " loving brethren." You 

 ought to know that, if there was one of us who 

 would not fight fair it would be the "other 

 fellow," of course; but it " breaks me all up," 

 as I made a mistake in my arithmetic, for I can 

 imagine Doolittle chuckling to himself. But 

 then, my point was true, all the same, but not 

 quite so big in degree. You just wait. When 

 you and Doolittle get to fighting over that 

 bottom-board, if I don't find some "misses" 

 and "fouls" it will be because there are not 



any to be found. We are preparing the arena 

 now. As umpires I'll appoint Hutchinson and 

 York. Now, then, here is the red rag; but be 

 sure to fight fair, loving brethren. — Ed.] 



What's the matter with you, Mr. Editor ? 

 You're mixed up because I use 15-oz. sections, 

 and think my practice should correspond with 

 my preaching. It does. I preach that 15 oz. 

 shouldn't be sold for a pound, but for 15 oz., 

 and I practice what I preach. I'm studying 

 on the problem of changing to something 

 lighter. But your mixed-up-ness, I suspect, 

 has led you to think 1 ^4 or 1 y^ the width of 

 section to contain comb such as bees would 

 build of their own sweet will. In this locality 

 a \% section will contain comb the same 

 as in brood-combs spaced 1^. According to 

 what Doolittle has observed, a l^^f section is 

 the right size for such comb as bees naturally 

 build. There isn't as much difference between 

 a 1 '/% section and what the bees would prefer 

 as most people, editors included, imagine. [I 

 am mixed up worse than ever. You can 

 preach all you have a mind to that 15 ounces 

 should be sold for 15 ounces; but, as sure as 

 fate, every 15-ounce section you sell is liable 

 in some markets to be sold for a pound. No, 

 you can not be consistent until you adopt 

 either the two-inch section or the 1^ or 1^. 

 —Ed.] 



What's the reason no one ever gave us 

 that kink of Coggshall's before — making 

 combs swap places in the extractor? I always 

 lifted out one comb, twisted it around, daub- 

 ing things as I did so, then went through the 

 same thing on the other side. Seems to me 

 Coggshall's way is a good deal quicker, with 

 less daub. [In the case of the ordinary ex- 

 tractor, where the combs are put down into 

 the machine endwise, I am rather of the opin- 

 ion that the ordinary way would be quicker 

 than the Coggshall. I wish some of our ex- 

 tracted honey men who have possibly tried 

 both methods would tell us which is the bet- 

 ter. It is these little things that we want to 

 know about, and it is these little short cuts 

 that save the pennies and the dollars. One of 

 the valuable things in Miller's " Year among 

 the Bees " — a book now out of print just be- 

 cause the doctor won't take time enough to 

 revise or re-write it — was that he took pains 

 to go into the minute details. I'd like to 

 know, among other things, just how one fills 

 his smoker; and whether, in working over a 

 hive, he sits down or stands up; and whether 

 he uses bee-veils or gloves, or both; whether 

 he kicks the super oiT, slap-bang fashion a la 

 Coggshall, or takes time to pry it off, using 

 smoke, and a whole lot of. other thirgs too 

 numerous to mention. — Ed.] 



What for do you let that proof-reader get 

 at me, Ernest, p. 205, with his legal spelling? 

 I own up, I see it would be all wrong if we 

 couldn't decide exactly the shade of meaning 

 by the spelling. But say, W. P., don't you 

 think there's something lacking yet? Ought 

 there not to be an extra frill in the spellings of 

 "quean" and "queen"? If Ernest writes 

 me he saw you with a "quean," how in the 

 world am I to know by the spelling whether it 



