1172 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



one variet}', the best, all things considered, 

 is required. Such a dominant variety 

 would fend to become fixed in its character- 

 istics; but it would always be capable of 

 very considerable gradual and permanent 

 improvement by elimination and selection. 



3. Tho there is much dif^'erence between 

 the different varieties in honey-gathering, 

 swarming, disposition, etc., there is not so 

 much difference between the economic re- 

 sults of that which we may call the dom- 

 inant variety of certain countries', and the 

 best imported variety or improved strain. 

 We are, perhaps, as likely or more likely 

 to obtain a better bee by consistently im- 

 proving the dominant variety than by im- 

 proving any other variety or by producing 

 hybrids. 



4. Bees differ from other domestic live 

 stock, such as cattle, in that we cannot 

 control their mating and breeding to the 

 extent that would enable us to maintain a 

 non-dominant variety as our sole variety. 

 That is, so long as we continue to breed 

 non-dominant varieties we must always ex- 

 pect to have along with them numerous 

 mongrels of undesirable quality; whereas 

 if we breed only one dominant variety we 

 should be practically free from such mon- 

 grels. The maintainance of the queens of 

 an apiary will, on the present system of 

 cross-breeding, always be a more or less 

 troublesome and costly item; and it is de- 

 sirable that this cost and effort should be 

 reduced, as it could be if we had only one 

 variety. 



5. There may be said to be three methods 

 of improving the bee as of improving plant 

 and animal life generally ; namely, by elim- 

 ination, selection, and hybridization. The 

 hybridization method breaks up the heredi- 

 tary constitution of the organism so much 

 that we lose one good point while breeding 

 for another. Thus improvements made by 

 tlie hybridization method are not easily fix- 

 ed but are easily lost. The hybridization 

 method is unnatural and undesirable except 

 as a means of inducing slight variations 

 to work upon when the stock is too fixed. 

 The eliminative method is slow but sure; 

 the selective method is quicker but less 

 sure. The eliminative method is a safe 

 one because it is comparatively easy to 

 judge what a defect is, and the rest is left 

 to nature. The selective method is not so 

 safe, because, while one may judge a good 

 quality, such as honey-gathering, there are 

 other qualities which may go along with 

 it, such as a tendency to disease, that are 

 not so easily judged. Thus in breeding 

 from one parent on the strength of one or 

 more selected good qualities, we may carry 



forward, quite as extensively, a bad quality 

 that is either unrecognizable or ignored. In 

 the method of elimination we rear our fu- 

 ture stock from a large quantity of indi- 

 viduals having very numerous points which 

 are intermixed by cross-fertilization ; where- 

 as in the method of selection we rear our 

 future stock from comparatively few indi- 

 viduals which may not contain all those 

 points which it is desirable to carry for- 

 ward. Suppose, for sake of argument, 100 

 queens of one variety, but each having 

 slight differences of quality. If we elimi- 

 aate 10 defectives we rear from and carry 

 forward the points of all or some of the 

 remaining 90. If, on the other hand, we 

 rear from two individuals selected for de- 

 sired points, we leave behind the various 

 points of the remaining 98, and at the 

 same time lose, to a great extent, the as- 

 sumed advantages of varied cross-fertiliza- 

 tion in maintaining vigor. The method of 

 elimination can be and should be can-ied 

 out by every beekeeper; but the method of 

 selection may be of doubtful future benefit, 

 even when carried out by an expert. In 

 the elimination method we co-operate with 

 nature; but in the selection method we 

 may be fighting against nature. There- 

 fore elimination, the primary method of 

 nature, is still the primary method by 

 which man can adapt domestic organic 

 life to his requirements; and selection, tho 

 more rapid, should be used only in modera- 

 tion, and subordinated to elimination, for 

 fear of specializing in defects, and inbreed- 

 ing; while hybridization should be regarded 

 as a dangerous method to be used only oc- 

 casionally, and in such a way as not to 

 break up the hereditary constitution of the 

 organism. 



I do not expect that all the arguments in 

 the foregoing five paragraphs will be ac- 

 cepted. I do not say that I accept them all 

 myself without qualification or further 

 consideration. But considering the argu- 

 ment generally — namely, that the aim of 

 beekeeping is mainly economic ; that na- 

 ture has a tendency to produce one variety 

 in a country ; that one variety is sufficient ; 

 that there is little difference in the economic 

 results of any of the varieties ; that the 

 breeding of bees cannot be completely and 

 continuously controlled by man, and that 

 some of the present methods of breeding are 

 unnatural, and unlikely to result in per- 

 manent improvement without accompany- 

 ing weaknesses, I am inclined to draw the 

 conclusion from them that it would be 

 much better for the present and future of 

 beekeeping, in some countries at least, if 

 beekeepers were to co-operate in improving 



