602 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



June 15 



experience that the supplying of jelly 

 wasted his time and tested his patience? 

 The job may be so expeditiously performed 

 that I don't see how a bee-keeper of his cal- 

 iber could find it trying-; and as for saying 

 that its use reduces the quality of the 

 queens, I am sure the assertion is so well 

 refuted by experience that any attempt on 

 my part to disprove it would be superflu- 

 ous. 



That cells may be grafted without jelly, 

 I am aware; but I am also aware that the 

 percentage of such cells accepted will be 

 smaller than the other. But how nicely 

 will the tiny drop of jelly receive the larva 

 from your grafting tool, while to lay one on 

 the hard dry bottom of a cell is a compara- 

 tively difficult task ! Besides, when one has 

 over a hundred cells to graft at one opera- 

 tion the use of jelly becomes a necessity or 

 the larva? will die before he gets through. 



There is not nearly as much danger of 

 getting larvse chilled by using " cold " jel- 

 ly as Mr. Pratt represents. There is more 

 danger of having it exposed to the air, and 

 becoming hard and unfit for use. Perhaps 

 jelly will never become too cold to use where 

 the weather is warm enough to allow the 

 transferring of larva?. True, bees will re- 

 move the jelly supplied in grafting, but not 

 until after it has served its purpose. 



As a rule, queen- cells built from wooden 

 cups may be given without protectors; yet, 

 since it entails but little extra work Is If 

 not belter to give them protectors? No long- 

 er ago thnn 3esterday one of the apiarists r 

 here called my attention to a cell, given un- 

 protected, that had been torn open at the 

 side. Now, during a honey- flow bees will 

 often build comb all over the cells; and in 

 removing this a cell may be slightly dam- 

 aged. The bees will destroy this promptly; 

 while if given in a protector it will hatch 

 in due time. It may be, however, that Mr. 

 Pratt can accomplish in his miniature nu- 

 clei what can not be done in larger colonies. 



Mr. Pratt says it is wasteful to destroy 

 good compressed cells every time virgins 

 hatch. Did I say otherwise? Let me quote 

 from "Modern Queen- rearing. " . "This 

 makes an artificial embryo queen-cell of 

 great durability. All that is necessary in 

 order to use it again is to trim off the out- 

 growth even with the wood, and let the 

 bees have access to it, when they will clean 

 out the residue of royal jelly left in the 

 bottom by the last queen hatched." Is 

 this destroying the cell? Neglect to trim 

 cfi: the outgrowth, and graft in the full- 

 sized cell, and the bees will soon gnaw it 

 down to the proper length — that is, if they 

 accept it at all. 



I can see that using a cell- frame so con- 

 structed that the removal of the cells from 

 a colony could be accomplished without 

 lifting out the entire frame would be an ad- 

 vantage. But a detachable top- bar can be 

 easily used with our wooden cups, and the 

 arrangement would be as handy as Mr. 

 Pratt's; in fact, Mr. Huber Root recom- 

 mended such a contrivance to me more than 



a year ago, but somehow I neglected using it. 

 I am always open to conviction, and am 

 ever ready to admit a blunder or adopt the 

 superior device of a brother bee-keeper. I 

 have been fair in trying Mr. Pratt's queen- 

 rearing system, but have not been able to 

 make it work. I tried it in Jamaica, and 

 in this country as well, but have never suc- 

 ceeded in getting even one queen fertilized. 

 Moreover, I am not alone in this respect. I 

 was recently speaking to Mr. F. A. Hoop- 

 er, of the firm of Hooper Brothers, Kings- 

 ton, Jamaica, one of the largest queen- 

 breeding establishments in the world, and 

 he declares that their experience has been 

 identical with my own. Nor are these the 

 only ones. That Mr. Pratt's system is 

 practical in his own hands, I firmly be- 

 lieve; but until he can render it workable 

 in the hands of the masses it is hardly fair 

 to expect us to adopt it in preference to 

 those which have proved to be satisfactory. 

 — G. W. P.] 



©OKS^JfQUEEN MEET A DRONE MORE THAN 

 ONCE? MORE PKOOF THAT SHE DOES. 



As Mr. Phillips, on page 286, has asked 

 others to report, I will give my experience. 

 In 1884, while standing by a hive I saw a 

 queen enter, evidently having just mated. 

 As I had watched and seen one go and re- 

 turn with the drone organs attached two 

 days previous to this. I was astonished. 

 My first thought was that a queen had en- 

 tered the wrong hive. On opening the hive 

 I found but the one queen moving quietly 

 over the combs, and she appeared to be at 

 home. Up to this time I had accepted the 

 statement of others that queens mated but 

 once. After this I spent all the time I could 

 spare watching queens but saw nothing 

 more that seasoo. 



June 22, 1885, I saw a queen take her 

 flight, and return, evidently having met a 

 drone The same queen flew out and re- 

 turned June 24, with the same evidence of 

 having met a drone. July 10 I saw anoth- 

 er go out, and return with the drone organs 

 attached. The same queen flew out and re- 

 turned with the drone organs attached, 

 July 24. 



I have spoken of this to a number of old 

 bee-keepers, but they all laughed and 

 winked at it. 



Nosv, to me this does not seem strange or 

 unusual. Copulation does not always im- 

 pregnate. There is proof of this in all do- 

 mestic animals, and why not with bees and 

 other insects? 



Mr. Phillips also says, page 286, that the 



