1898 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



357 



about 43 ten-thousandths, and the natural 

 comb about Cu ten-thousandths. It is appar- 

 ent from these figures that the no-wall had the 

 lightest base of any of them, and the drawn 

 the heaviest by considerable. But these tables 

 would have been much more interesting to 

 me if we could have known the relative thick- 

 nesses of the bases of the foundation before 

 the bees worked on them, as well as after. 



We have held all along that the bees would 

 not thin the bases, but would thin the walls. 

 While this is practically true, some measure- 

 ments that I have made to-day with a microm- 

 eter measuring ten-thousandths of an inch 

 lead me to believe that the bees do thin the 

 bases slightly. From various measurements 

 of different foundations, especially of our own 

 make, I find that the base of ordinary " thin " 

 foundation running 11 feet to the pound, and 

 before the bees had worked it, stands about 71 

 or 72 ten-thousandths of an inch thick ; extra- 

 thin, 50 to 60 ten-thousandths ; the 18-feet- 

 to-the-pound article, from 10 to 50 ten-thou- 

 sandths. Our own measurements of the base 

 of natural comb differ from those made by 

 Prof. Beal. A year ago we found that the base 

 of natural comb averaged about oO ten-thou- 

 sandths of an inch thick ; but I notice that 

 Prof. Beal makes it very nearly 67 ten-thou- 

 sandths, or more than twice what we found it 

 to be. Accordingly, to-day I went out to the 

 honey-house and selected a number of pieces 

 of natural comb. My measurements ran all 

 the way from 29 to 41 ten-thousandths. A fair 

 average of the last measurements, or those I 

 made to-day, would stand about 36 ten-thou- 

 sandths. I would, therefore, find the base of 

 natural comb about half as thick as those at- 

 tributed to Prof. Beal in the Review. While I 

 think he made his measurements correctly, I 

 feel morally certain that he got hold of some 

 samples of natural comb that the bees drew 

 out slowly ; for I have foimd it to be true that 

 bees will make comb twice as heavy under 

 some circumstances as they will under others ; 

 and I am therefore very confident that 77 ten- 

 thousandths (Beal's measurements) is alto- 

 gether above the general average. 



Mr. Taylor, on the assumption that the base 

 of comb from no-wall foundation was 43 ten- 

 thousandths, and that from natural comb 67 

 ten-thousandths, concludes that, in point of 

 thickness, the Bingham was thinner than the 

 natural. If I am right as to the average thick- 

 ness of natural-comb bases the conclusion is 

 hardly correct, unless Prof. Beal were measur- 

 ing drone comb, the base of which I find to be 

 all the way from 60 to 77 ten-thousandths of 

 an inch thick. If that were the case, it would 

 hardly be fair to compare drone with worker 

 comb. 



I do not know, but I shall expect that, if 

 we make 18-feet-to-the-pound wall foundation 

 having a base averaging about ^^^^ of an inch, 

 we shall have results in bases, as between 

 comb from such foundation and that built en- 

 tirely by the bees, that will defy even the con- 

 noisseur or micrometer to detect the differ- 

 ence. I do not wish to go on record as saying 

 that we shall be able to do it, but I hope we 

 shall. 



In speaking of drawn (deep cell) foundation 

 we freely admit — indeed, we did so last fall — 

 that the septum of such comb, after the Vjees 

 got through with it in many instances, was a 

 good deal thicker than it was desirable to have 

 it ; and the results of Mr. Taylor's experi- 

 ments are no surprise. Mr. Weed is very con- 

 fident that his natural-base drawn foundation 

 vdll have as thin a base as that mnde by the 

 bees. If it does not, or fails to fill the bill, 

 you may depend upon it that we shall not 

 push it on the public. 



Mr. Taylor's table is very interesting, more 

 especially as it goes to show that perhaps 

 foundation-makers have not been as particular 

 as they should have been in getting the bases 

 of foundation as thin in the first place as they 

 might be. The "thin" foundation of our 

 make that Prof. Beal measured showed a base, 

 after the bees worked it down, that is about 

 twice as thick as the foundation we are now 

 making of the same grade. I do not know 

 that we ever made any that had a base as 

 thick as yi/'iuicf ^^ ^" \nQ\\ ; and I am rather of 

 the opinion that, through some error, Mr. 

 Taylor received a heavy grade. The thickest 

 base I can find in any of our " thin " founda- 

 tion is iu\/o(, ; and assuming that the bees do 

 thin it slightly on working, it would probably 

 stand about io\i"do- 



Perhaps, dear reader, you may think it im- 

 possible to split hairs as closely as this. We 

 have in our machine-shop a delicate microm- 

 eter, made by Brown & Sharp, that will mea- 

 sure off the ten-thousandth part of an inch as 

 easily and accurately as you would measure 

 off eighths of an inch on a foot rule. 



It may be interesting to you to know that 

 the paper on which this is printed averages 

 nfifoo of an inch thick — the thickness of the 

 base of natural comb, and, like natural comb, 

 the greatest thickness was 32 and the least 27 

 ten-thousandths. 



POWERFUL COLONIES AND THE SWARMING 



problem; the BRITISH FRAME; 



BIG ENTRANCES. 



" Bee Chat " is the title of a new quarterly 

 edited by Samuel Simmins, Heathfield, Sussex, 

 England. The subscription price is one shill- 

 ing per annum; but I have no doubt it can be 

 furnished to American readers for 35 cts. The 

 first number is quite "chatty," and full of 

 interesting bee-lore, largely editorial. The 

 editor says he has no intention of competing 

 with his elders, the British Bee Journal and 

 the Bee-keepers' Record, whose circulation 

 and reputation have been so long established. 

 He would fill a niche all his own. 



I was particularly interested, however, in 

 what he says on the subject of powerful colo- 

 nies as honey-gatherers. He deplores the 

 fact that British bee-keepers have adopted as 

 their standard the British frame, the dimen- 

 sions of which are 8^x14. Then he adds : 



There is no .single instance where permanent suc- 

 cess has been attained on a large scale, where this 

 frame has been adopted. Why? Echo repeats " Why!" 

 The answer is given forth, as the record of repeated 

 failures and unlooked-for disasters, ^^ Because the As- 

 sociation frame is not adapted to the needs of commercial 

 bee culture." 



