NOVEMBER 1, 1914 



807 



some whose superseding is delayed because 

 queen-cells have been killed, so that super- 

 seding may be from June till September. 



Arthur C. Miiler, p. 718, quotes me as 

 saying bees don't mix pollen or honey in 

 the same cell. Please play fair, Arthur, 

 and read the whole Straw through. I quot- 

 ed what I think is the general belief, and 

 then said it was not always true. But it's 

 the rule with rare exceptions — here. I sus- 

 pect it may be different with you, and you 

 have incidentally given the reason. You 

 say honeys are perhaps always mixed "when 

 the bees of a colony are working on more 

 than one source." That's just it. Here, 

 some one source cf nectar has the prefer- 

 ence, and that source is nearly always 

 plentiful enough so that bees rarely work 

 " on more than one source." Your bees may 

 be obliged to work on diffei'ent plants at the 

 same time, in which ease it should be the 

 rule, and not the exception, that cells con- 

 tain mixtures. 



There has been some tendency to say 

 " extract " instead of " extracted." Now it 

 seems to have the sanction of the U. S. Gov- 

 ernment and Gleanings, p. 748. It is in- 

 correct; yet it has the advantage of being 

 shorter, and use may make it correct. But 

 I'm afraid of the effect on the popular mind. 

 Will not the public think of " extract of 

 honey," and class it with "extract of coffee" 

 and other things that are not genuine? 

 [The word "extract" must have been a 

 misprint in the government bulletin. Our 

 printers followed this spelling with singular 

 fidelity — that is to say, we printed it just 

 as it was in the bulletin. In going over the 

 bulletin elsewhere we find the word " ex- 

 tracted " in full. The abbreviated form 

 would be objectionable, as you say, on 

 account of the general public who would 

 naturally construe it as being an extract of 

 honey and not the real article. — Ed.] 



For hive-covers " good roofing-papers, if 

 carefully used, will do good service for ten 

 or twelve years," p. 606. I have testimony 

 on that point. Years ago I had two hive- 

 covers from Medina covered with a heavy 

 paper, but not roofing-paper. I think it was 

 Neponset. I was to keep them painted, but 

 never put on a drop of paint. One of them 

 lasted till this year ; the other is still good. 

 If you can recall, Mr. Editor, when you 

 began experimenting in that direction, you 

 can tell how old those covers are. I wonder 

 if repapering would not be cheaper than 

 painting. [We have tested out the Neponset 

 paper at our yard, and had practically the 

 same experience that you had. The only 

 objection to it is that it will cut or tear 

 awav when metal would not. When hives 



are jailed one on top of the other, these 

 Neponset roofs are likely to suffer damage, 

 especially if the hives contain heavy combs. 

 —Ed.] 



In every ease where I have tried it, no 

 matter what the condition of the colony, a 

 virgin less than a day old has always been 

 accepted, even with laying workers or a 

 laying queen, although in the latter case she 

 would be killed when a day or two older. 

 But what J. E. Hand says, p. 722, makes 

 me susiDicious that there are exceptions, and 

 I'd be glad to know if he or others have had 

 virgins killed when less than a day old. 

 [Yes, we have had virgins killed when less 

 than a day old, although the rule is that up 

 to 24 hours they will be accepted by a 

 queenless colony without any smoking or 

 introducing, providing they do not carry 

 the odors of the fingei's of the apiarist, and 

 even then they will generally be accepted. 

 We have made it a rule, when introducing 

 to day-old virgins, to keep the fingers off 

 from them and allow them to run quietly 

 out of the cage down between the combs or 

 into the entrance without opening the hive. 

 —Ed.] 



Mr. Editor^ I've troubles of my own with 

 two Scotchwomen under the same roof with- 

 out your letting that Macdonald Scotchman 

 get after me, p. 728. He quotes me as say- 

 ing, " I don't believe I ever gained by stim- 

 ulative feeding," and says I'm wrong. Then 

 he comes at me like any other Scotch 

 l^reacher with his " firstly," " secondly," 

 and " thirdly." Firstly, the immense gain 

 by feeding small lots having a queen, vir- 

 gin, or cell. Well, I never stimulatively fed 

 such lots, so I couldn't gain in that way, 

 could I, Mac? Secondly — well, there's some 

 chance for a healthy fight on some points 

 in your secondly; but as I never practiced 

 stimulative feeding on a weakling in early 

 summer I don't believe I ever gained by 

 that way. Thirdly, autumn stimulation. 

 I've fed quite a lot in autumn, first and 

 last, but always as nearly in a lump as I 

 could, which can hardly be called stimula- 

 tive feeding. The only stimulative feeding 

 I ever tried was on full colonies in spring, 

 and I don't believe I ever gained any thing 

 by that; and if I understand you correctly 

 you don't believe I did either, friend Mac- 

 donald. And since that is the only stimula- 

 tive feeding I've done, do j'ou blame me for 

 thinking I never gained by stimulative feed- 

 ing? But don't for a minute think I don't 

 believe that others have gained, and gained 

 big, by stimulative feeding. But it was in 

 cases where a lack of a natural flow was of 

 such long duration that, without stimulative 

 feeding, breeding would have ceased. 



