1564 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Dec. 15 



with one window; and there is a window in 

 the center of each side wall, but none in the 

 back wall. These three windows are not 

 darkened in any way, and the door is open 

 at all times when the farmer is getting prod- 

 uce either in or out from the cellar; but 

 with the hives set with the entrances near 

 and facing the wall at the rear, the bees are, 

 in a sort of semi-darkness; oi', in other words, 

 the light does not directly strike the bees in 

 any way unless they crawl out at the en- 

 trance and around on the side of the hives. 

 If they do this the light can strike them di- 

 rectly." 



' ' 1 should think many would get lost in 

 this way." 



"I feared so at first; but after nearly twen- 

 ty years of wintering them thus, I do not see 

 that the loss of bees is any greater during 

 their winter confinement than is the case 

 with a cellar without one single ray of light 

 penetrating the same." 



A writer in the British Bee Journnl is giv- 

 ing us some interesting talks on the pronun- 

 ciation of terms used by bee-keepers. This 

 is certainly a good field to plow up and seed 

 down, although all doubts may be removed 

 by consulting a dictionary. The author of 

 these talks on bee-words says that "pro-/)©- 

 lis" is a wrong pronunciation of that word, 

 and that ";j>ro-po-lis" is not heard from 

 those who mingle much with bee-keepers. 

 That seems a little strange, for it is quite a 

 bee locality here in Medina, and "pro-po-lis" 

 is the only pronunciation I hear, and this is 

 the first or preferred accent given by the 

 Standard Dictionary and all others I have 

 seen. The origin of the word would seem 

 to show that that is the best way. as x>ro 

 means in front of, and j)oUs means a city. 



About twenty years ago an attempt was 

 made ih this country to put very small sec- 

 tions of honey on the market— some that 

 would sell for about a nickel apiece for pic- 

 nic purposes. The plan was soon dropped, 

 however, and nothing more said about it till 

 recently, when the matter was reviewed in 

 England. Mr. Robertson, the projector, says 

 in the Briiish Bee journal, "These sections 

 weigh 1 oz. each, probably slightly more, 

 and so to retail them at 18 cts. a dozen, or 

 in other words at 24 cts. a pound for honey, 

 should not spell financial ruin to those bee- 

 keepers who try them. It is absurd to sug- 

 gest selling at 12 to 16 cts. a pound and thus 

 give 100 per cent to the restaurant. I under- 



stand 20 cents a dozen is the price paid by 

 tta-rooms for their small pots of jam, so that 

 18 cts. a dozen is not an out-of-the-way price 

 for these miniature sections." The result 

 will be watched with interest on this side. 



A French correspondent, and a user of 

 honey, both comb and extracted, says if those 

 who use comb honey would pour milk on it 

 they would find the honey greatly improved, 

 as the milk deprives it of the intensely sweet 

 fiavor that prevents most people from eating 

 more than a spoonful at one time, as it then 

 cloys the taste. That is all true, as 1 know 

 by experience, only 1 improve the milk by 

 dropping the honey into that. Father Lang- 

 stroth once wrote an article for these col- 

 umns, in which he showed that milk is the 

 natural complement of honey, and that the 

 two shi'uld be used together when honey is 

 used for food. In ancient times, as we learn 

 from the Bible, milk and honey were always 

 considered as supplementary to each other. 

 Eighteen books in the Bible refer to honey, 

 and in every instance it speaks of it favora- 

 bly, and generally as a great blessing. The 

 above might also include what is said of 

 honey-comb, where, plainly, comb honey is 

 meant. I can more easily eat half a pound 

 of comb honey, with plenty of milk, than 

 half that amount without milk. 



Much has been said against the eating of 

 wax in comb honey; but, like W. Z. Hutch- 

 inson, I do not notice any ill effects from it. 



A year ago considerable interest was arous- 

 ed among l)ee-keepers on both sides of the 

 line relative to a suit for damages, in which 

 Mr. Morley Pettit, of Ontario, was defendant. 

 The Canadian Bee Journal sums the whole 

 matter up thus: 



The appealed bee case of Lucas vs. Pettit (our 

 friend Mr. Morley Pettit, of Villa Nova) has been de- 

 cided against the defendant. We presume it is natu- 

 ral for us to sympathize with the bee-keeper while 

 we bow to the decision of the judge. 



For the information of those who may not have 

 seen the report of this suit in the papers, Mr. Pettit's 

 side of the story is that, on August 10, 190.5, Freeman 

 Lucas, a neighboring farmer, led his team of horses 

 into his oattield, which was across the road and at a 

 safe distance from one of Mr. Pettit's yards, with the 

 intention of cutting the oats. Mr. Lucas went back 

 to shut up the gap, and when he turned to his horses 

 there was a cloud of bees flying around them, stinging 

 them. He attempted to drive the bees away with his 

 hat. which only made matters worse, and was him- 

 self stung so that he ran and rolled in some mud near 

 by, then went home, leaving the horses standing. The 

 horses both died. The indications were that a swarm 

 had clustered in the oats, and the horses, getting into 

 them, stirred them up with the above results. The 

 case was tried in Simcoe, where the jury brought in a 

 verdict of $400. Mr. Pettit appealed the case, but was 

 again defeated, 



The strange thing about the case is that, while Mr. 

 Pettit has been made responsible for the action of the 

 bees, he could not legally have claimed the swarm 

 had he wished to secure it in his neighbor's corn-field, 

 according to R. S. O.. 1897, chapter 117, section .5 which 

 reads: " If the owner of a swarm of bees declines to 

 follow the swarm, and another person undertakes the 

 pursuit, such other person shall be substituted in the 

 rights of the owner; and every swarm which is not 

 followed shall become the property of the proprietor 

 of the land on which it settles, without regard to the 

 place from which it has come." 



