1899 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



347 



than a myth. Yet I am free to say that I 

 should feel more certain if I actually saw 

 them. I can see how oak-tree plant-lice, 

 which are by no means rare, might lead to an 

 erroneous conclusion' " {Review, 48). This 

 quotation was made anent the editor's change 

 of opinion, largely on account of the single 

 report of Mr. Buchanan. So the answer to 

 the doctor's quesiion is : Assume the scientific 

 attitude ; seek for new light — not for just a 

 little, so that there will be a preponderance ; 

 but, to change the figure, since his foundation 

 has slipped from under him let him investi- 

 gate until he has found another stable one. 

 We see, in recent events, the results of the 

 doctor's position. It is laughable (may I not 

 say it without offense?) that, within the space 

 of about two months, the doctor and the edi- 

 tor have each been upon both sides of the im- 

 portant question as to whether fifteen minutes' 

 boiling of honey is sufficient to destroy the 

 vitality of foul-brood germs therein ; and, 

 strange to say, they are upon opposite sides 

 still, and the end is not yet. This situation is 

 altogether a fine commentary upon the doc- 

 tor's argument. Why should we be carried 

 about with every wind of doctrine in scientific 

 matters any more than in religious ones ? 

 Yes, the doctor, as he seems half to suspect, 

 comes into the same condemnation unless he 

 has some light which he does not reveal. If 

 he has investigated the boiling-point of honey, 

 and has found that its temperature is high 

 enough to destroy with certainty foul-brood 

 spores in the time mentioned, then he does not. 

 In the paragraph headed " Was Mr. Da- 

 dant Fair?" the pyrotechnics of the doctor 

 are to me quite bewildering. They ought to 

 have quite close attention ; but as I fear I 

 trespass on space I must treat them very 

 briefly. The doctor speaks much of " hon- 

 esty " and the "common people." I infer 

 that there must be common people and com- 

 mon people, or else that locality makes a dif- 

 ference, for I am aware of none in this neigh- 

 borhood, such as he describes ; and the man 

 who in " every deal he makes is so anxious 

 not to overreach that he pays a little more 

 than he ought " would not be looked upon by 

 the common people here at all as he seems to 

 be by those with whom the doctor is acquaint- 

 ed. Here one of the more conservative ones 

 would say he is foolish ; one of the more im- 

 pulsive ones, instead of using the adjective 

 " foolish," would use the noun with a more 

 or less emphatic expletive before it. Or if the 

 man were wealthy, so that he could always 

 pay a little more than he ought without injus- 

 tice to himself or to his family, he would not 

 be " applauded for his honesty," though he 

 might be for his generosity. Hereabouts the 

 question of the amount of a debt is an exact 

 science, and there is no necessity of paying 

 more than is found to be due in order to be 

 sure that a sufficient payment has been made. 

 When one always gladly pays the exact 

 amount due he is considered honest so far as 

 financial matters go, and he can not be con- 

 sidered more honest by paying more. A 

 name for honesty can not be purchased by a 

 lavish use of money, or many a blackleg would 



have to be considered honest. When a man 

 has no one depending on him, nor any cred- 

 itors, he may, of course, be as generous as he- 

 likes with his money : it is a matter entirely 

 between himself and the recipient. But 

 when one who is specially recognized as au- 

 thority on a hive writes for the public about 

 it, the character of his statements is not a 

 mere matter between himself and his antago- 

 nist. Tens and hundreds of others are wait- 

 ing on his words, and he has no right to be 

 generous in his statements. He is bound to be 

 just — that is, exact. To be sure, this all started 

 from a very little matter ; but the principle is 

 the important point, and I write to make that 

 clear. 



At the suggestion of the editor, as a sort of 

 appendix to the foregoing I make a few com- 

 ments on some points mentioned by him in 

 late numbers of Gleanings. On page 189 he 

 excuses himself for his change of opinion on 

 the foul-brood matter because " it is safer to 

 err on the side that a few minutes' boiling is 

 insufficient," and " we should take that side 

 which we know to be safe." If it is a ques- 

 tion of safety merely, I fear the editor will be 

 obliged to change his opinion again ;. for I am 

 satisfied that, in the hands of many, three 

 hours' boiling would not be entirely safe ; at 

 all events, I could give a course of procedure 

 that would be safer than any length of boil- 

 ing. But the question of safety and the ques- 

 tion of the truth of a certain proposition, viz., 

 whether the boiling of honey fifteen minutes 

 is sufficient to destroy the vitality of foul- 

 brood germs therein, are two very distinct 

 things. We had been discussing the latter, 

 and now the editor seems to be confounding 

 another issue with it. We must keep differ- 

 ent things distinct or it will be impossible to 

 arrive at any just conclusion at all. 



Referring to the editor's remarks on the 

 "Boiling-point of Honey," p. 233, I wish to 

 say that he seems to be asking too much of 

 Dr. Miller and myself in the way of testing 

 the boiling-point of honey when in his own 

 great establishment he can not find a ther- 

 mometer that will serve to find that point. 



Further along the editor seems to be in 

 error in speaking of the boiling-point of water 

 as " 212 or 213." At his elevation that point 

 must always be below 212°. 



Another error, I think, is found in his sug- 

 gestion that possibly the scientist boils his 

 foul-brood germs in beef gelatin. In so far 

 as I have observed, scientists always speak of 

 the resisting power of spores with reference to 

 the boiling-point of water, and there would be 

 neither science nor sense in boiling in some 

 other liquid having a different boiling-point — 

 not that the germs are actually turned loose 

 in the water — I do not suppose that to be the 

 case; but the flask containing the culture is 

 suspended in boiling water, and in that way 

 can get as hot as but no hotter than the water. 



Now, we have made a distinct advance since 

 the editor, though he has not determined the 

 exact temperature of boiling honey, has found 

 that it is decidedly higher than that of water. 

 It now remains to be determined scientifically 

 what effect boiling honey has on foul-brood 



