64 



THE AMERICAN BEE-KEEPER. 



March 



I 



Stuart, Fla., Feb. 17, 1904. 

 Friend Hill: 



Thanks for the clipping you sent me 

 from an editorial in the January num- 

 ber of The Southland Queen. I will 

 try to answer Mr. Atchley's questions. 



To his first and second questions I 

 would say that it is not a fact that 

 "pollen is always found in the sacs 

 of bees dying with paralysis." All the 

 diseased bees that I have dissected 

 and examined with Coddington lens 

 showed no appearance whatever of 

 pollen in the sacs. They seemed to be 

 filled with pure honey. To his third 

 question the only answer there can be 

 is yes. 



I cannot help thinking that I was 

 right in saying that "Mr. Atchley 

 must have either a very peculiar kind 

 of bees or an unusual form of disease." 

 His theory is quite ingenious, but, un- 

 fortunately, several well-observed 

 facts throw almost certain doubt on 

 the theory. 



1st. Drones are quite subject to the 

 disease, and they have never been ac- 

 cused of being chyle producers. Mr. 

 Atchley is without doubt mistaken 

 when saying that drones do not die 

 with the disease. Many others be- 

 sides myself have reported on that 

 point, at least two Texas beekeepers 

 having done so within the last two 

 months. 



2nd. The disease seems to be much 

 more prevalent in certain strains or 

 families of bees. At least four times 

 within the last ten years I have had 

 to utterly destroy certain queens and 

 all their daughters; nearly all the cases 

 in my apiary being confined to these 

 particular bees. Certain viue'.Mi3 seem 

 to iMinsirit the germs of the disease 

 thrcvgh queen daughters to their i)ro- 

 geny. This looks as though there < an 

 be but little doubt that the disease is 

 of a nature to be transmitted from one 

 generation to another. It will, liow- 

 ever, take the most skillful scientific 

 examination to absolutely determine 

 this point — an examination which 

 neither Mr. Atchley nor myself have 

 the facilities to do. 



3rd. Colonies which have had the dis- 

 ease one season, but recovered without 

 treatment of any kind, are much more 

 liable to have the disease next season 

 than are other colonies. 



4th. It is the old bees, the field 



workers, that die; not, as a rule, the 



1 are ti>e ones that 



prepare the chyle. If chyle was in 

 any manner the cause of the disease, 

 the nurse bees would be the ones af- 

 fected, not the field workers. My own 

 conclusions, as to cause and effect, 

 are directly opposite to those of Mr. 

 Atchley. I think the strong inclina- 

 tion shown by the diseased colonies to 

 rear all the broo-d they possibly can is 

 caused by the disease, and that the 

 disease is not a result of the brood 

 rearing inclination. 



All badly diseased colonies are very 

 short of field workers and have an un- 

 duly large proportion of young or 

 nurse bees. All weak colonies with 

 prolific queens have a strong desire to 

 raise all the brood they can. In nearly 

 all badly diseased colonies many more 

 eggs are laid by the queen than the 

 few field workers can gather food for. 

 I have never noticed that colonies de- 

 ^■eloped any abnormal brood rearing 

 desire before being weakened by the 

 disease. It looks to me as though the 

 facts point to a shortage of the chyle 

 supply rather than an over supply. 



The undoubted fact that the proper 

 use of sulphur has and will cure the 

 disease indicates that its nature is en- 

 tirely different from Mr. Atchley's 

 Idea of it. I don't see how that fact 

 and Mr. Atchley's theory can be re- 

 conciled. 



There are still other reasons why it 

 looks to me as though Mr. Atchley's 

 "facts" on which he bases his theory, 

 aro quite badly mixed. 



While I am not absolutely certain 

 that sick bees can carry the disease, 

 yet I am so well satised that they can 

 do so that I take considerable care to 

 prevent it. O. O. Poppleton. 



REMOVING SECTIONS FROM THE 



sri'!:R. 



In Mr. Greiner's interesting article 

 published in this number, he refers to 

 the liability of the one-piece section to 

 pull apart at the dovetailed corner ■ 

 when removing finished goods from 

 the super, and asks if our trouble in > 

 this respect may not be multiplied by 

 the use of a section having four such i 

 corners. 



We do not know Mr. Greiner's meth- \ 

 od of removing completed sections 

 from the super; but in all the comb | 

 honey we have handled we do not | 

 remember to have had such an ex- ' 

 perience in a single case, and do not 



