1899 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



353 



lar laws to protect our butter and cheese, and we 

 know how to appreciate them. S. T. Pettit. 



Belmont, Out., March 15, L899. 



[I did not know until recently that Mr. Pet- 

 tit felt that an in^istice had been done him by 

 the statement appearing in Gleanings, page 

 500 for 1890. Indeed, I don't think I knew at 

 the time that he was the author of the bill that 

 was said to be so ' ' draconically worded ' ' that 

 there was no provision for feeding bees. In 

 any case, I am sure neither Mr. Hasty nor Mr. 

 Hutchinson meant to do the author of that 

 bill an injustice, and if they made a misstate- 

 ment, as appears from above, it was because 

 they were misinformed. While it seems a lit- 

 tle strange that the matter should have been 

 allowed to go so long uncorrected, yet at this 

 late date, three years after, Gleanings is very 

 glad, in justice to Mr. Pettit, to make the cor- 

 rection as prominent as possible. — Ed ] 



DRONE-COMB; NON-SWARMING BEES, ETC. 



Travel-stain Due to a Secretion that is More 



Abundant During a Poor Honey-flow than 



a Rapid One. 



BY S. P CULLEY. 



We believe "the first and primary cause of 

 bees constructing drone comb" in preference 

 to worker comb during a heavy yield of honey 

 to be the carrying-out of the idea of economy 

 of wax (see " Honey-comb," in A B C book), 

 together with haste in the preparation of hon- 

 ey room. When there is a flow of nectar the 

 bees' instinct is to store as great a quantity as 

 possible. They want the most space in the 

 least time, with the smallest amount of wax. 

 Building drone comb secures this, hence they 

 build it. Often they are in such haste for 

 storage room that they build extra-large drone- 

 cells, which must be built at an upward angle 

 or curve — too large and too slanting and too 

 deep to be used for rearing drones. 



The instance cited by Dr. Miller (page 166) 

 may be accounted for in several ways. Per- 

 haps he had little or no drone comb in the 

 brood-chamber, and the queen laid eggs in the 

 section of drone comb. If the honey-flow had 

 let up by the time the drones hatched, that 

 would explain it. 



TRAVEL-STAIN. 



There may be more than one cause for trav- 

 el-stain — that is to say, there may be more 

 than one kind of stain. But the kind the edi- 

 tor and Mr. Smith are talking about, the stain 

 that " seemed to be in every particle " of the 

 comb, is caused by a secretion similar to sali- 

 va, which secretion has a chemical quality, or 

 else carries infinitessimal particles of matter 

 which stain white sections, honey-comb, etc. 

 This secretion is penetrating, and stains cap- 

 pings and comb-walls through and through. 

 One of its functions is to lubricate the bee's 

 tongue and mandibles. We suspect that it 

 has a chemical action which aids in the pres- 

 ervation of pollen. Like all other secretions 

 it varies in amount. When bees are gather- 

 ing nectar rapidly, loading and unloading 



their honey- sacs every few minutes, the quan- 

 tity secreted is hardly appreciable, and the 

 hone)' is white or clear. When gathering nec- 

 tar slowly, more is secreted, and the honey is 

 amber. Honey gathered vtry slowly contains 

 enough of this secretion to make it yellow or 

 dark. Thus it modifies the color of honey. 



When bees gather pullen this secretion is 

 copious. It moistens the pollen and protects 

 the bee's tongue, and, we suspect, acts as an 

 aid in preserving the pollen. Pollen always 

 contains enough to stain yellow the walls of 

 the cell in which it is deposited — this indepen- 

 dently of any color-stain the pollen itself may 

 yield. It may stain propolis also. 



Bees clean house with their tongues. If any 

 thing does not seem to their liking they scrub 

 it with their tongues. As they do this the se- 

 cretion is used, and this gives its odor and its 

 stain to the furniture. We may suppose they 

 brush foreign particles of objectionable dust 

 from the honey in the same way. This con- 

 tinual cleaning of house by scrubbing with its 

 tongue, etc., accounts for the kind of stain 

 that Messrs. Smith and Root are discussing. 

 It is reasonable to suppose, also, that bees, 

 like all other animals, give off small particles 

 of matter that aid this secretion in the work 

 of discoloration. The effect of this secretion 

 (probably helped by exudation) may be illus- 

 trated by the coloring of a meerschaum pipe. 

 The same substance makes the pipe slightly 

 yellow at first, then quite yellow, and finally 

 a glossy black. The effect of this secretion on 

 the combs, like the tobacco substance in the 

 pipe, colors yellow at first, and finally black. 

 This idea is not theory, but fact. We will 

 furnish ample proof of its correctness if any- 

 body wants proof. 



NON-SWARMING BEES. 



Apropos of Mr. J. E. Crane's argument that 

 we can produce a breed of non-swarming bees 

 just as we have produced non-sitting hens, is 

 Mr. Crane really sure that the swarming im- 

 pulse or instinct is rightly compared with the 

 sitting impulse or instinct ? Bees are different 

 from chickens. There is the colony which 

 perpetuates itself by brood rearing ; then the 

 increase of colonies requires swarming. The 

 comparison involves some fine points ; but in- 

 asmuch as the bee can not live an individual 

 life as chickens do, the question is whether 

 the swarming instinct is not allied to the prop- 

 agating instinct, which is universal and ine- 

 radicable. From this point of view one might 

 contend that the production of a breed of non- 

 swarming bees can be compared only to the 

 production of a breed of fowls which failed to 

 propagate. If it can be proven that the swarm- 

 ing instinct is comparable with the propagat- 

 ing instinct of fowls rather than with the sit- 

 ting instinct, then Mr. Crane's argument fails; 

 for non-sitting, we believe, results from an in- 

 crease of propagating, or egg-production. 



There is a limit to man's control in breeding 

 to produce certain results. He can produce a 

 cow that gives more milk ; a sheep that bears 

 more wool ; a strain of bees that gather more 

 honey ; but has he ever produced a new trait, 

 or been able to eradicate a primary instinct ? 

 He can manipulate what already exists, but 



