Dec. 21, 1899. 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL, 



803 



that many empty cells are between the capt brood. This is 

 always a sign that something- is wrong. Probably the 

 queen that laid the eggs was worn out, and in this condi- 

 tion laid some unimpregnated eggs in worker-cells. Many 

 times we see on a brood-comb a few cells with higher cap- 

 pings containing drone-pupit. I always note these colonies 

 for changing the queen as soon as possible. Sometimes 

 even young queens will lay some drone-eggs in worker- 

 cells at first, and will get all right afterwards. All this 

 was known long ago, and Herr von Berlepsch mentioned it 

 in his book, second edition, page 98, about 30 years ago. 

 Besides this, laying workers cause many mistakes in this 

 respect, especially in Egyptian and Cyprian colonies we 

 can observe that a fertile queen and laying-workers are in 

 the same hive at the same time. So we see these observa- 

 tions can be explained without difficulty. 



About the many experiments Mr. Dickel made and rec- 

 ommended, it must be said that they do not prove anything. 

 Scientific authorities have lately proven that Mr. Dickel's 

 theory is a fallac5- and not Mr. Dzierzon's. 



Fleischman, professor of zoology at the University of 

 Erlangen. says it is simply impossible that a worker-larva 

 can be changed to a drone — something Mr. Dickel asserts — 

 because drone and worker larvaa can be easily distin- 

 guisht by microscopic analyses as soon as the.v leave the 

 eggs. Prof. Blochmann ha^ analyzed, by the aid of modern 

 technic, drone and worker eggs, and proven that, without 

 doubt, the latter is impregnated while the first is not. 



Against the scientific proof nothing can be said, and 

 nobody would mention Dickel's theory any more if Mr. 

 Dickel were not the editor of a bee-paper, and does most of 

 the talking himself. D. St.\chelhausen'. 



Bexar Co., Tex. 



[So far as the American Bee Journal is concerned this 

 will close the discussion of the Dickel Theory for the pres- 

 ent. — Editor.] 



Larvae for Queen-Rearing- — For What Ag-e Do 

 the Bees Show a Preference ? 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



ON page 725 of Gleanings in Bee-Culture for 1898 I ex- 

 prest the belief that the common notion that, when a 

 queen was suddenly removed from a colony, the bees 

 were in such haste to rear a successor that they would select 

 larva; too old, was a mistaken notion. Earnest protests 

 came from those whose opinions were entitled to respect, 

 and some views were attributed to me that I did not hold. 

 On page 427 of this year I defined my position more ex- 

 plicitly, and on page 494 said : "Please watch what bees 

 do when the queen is taken away, and see if they make the 

 mistake of choosing larvae more than three days old, for 

 queen-rearing." I made the same request publicU' and 

 privately elsewhere. I don't know that any one paid any 

 attention to it, and I don't know that I blame such ; for, so 

 far as I know, I stood alone in opposing a view in which all 

 the rest were agreed. 



Upon one point in dispute, however, I did not stand en- 

 tirely alone. I said queenless bees start queen-cells when 

 first made queenless, and continue to start queen-cells for 

 several days. Mr. Hutchinson said his bees started all their 

 cells at nearly the same time, and so nearly of an age that 

 the young queens emerged not more than two days apart. 

 Henry Alley said his experience agreed with mine upon 

 this point. 



Having askt others to make fresh observations, it was 

 only fair that I should do so myself. It might be I had not 

 been careful enough in previous observations. So I took 

 the matter in dispute to the bees, and took careful notes of 

 their testimony. The important thing- was to know some- 

 what positivelj' the age of the eggs or larvs used, and the 

 time at which the queen-cells were started. 



To No. 84 I gave successively frames of empty comb, 

 noting the time at which a comb was given as well as the 

 time it was taken awaj'. I was not as successful as I should 

 have liked in getting the queen to lay promptly in the 

 combs given. In one case no eggs were laid in the pre- 

 scribed comb after 24 hours' waiting. The probability is, 

 that in all cases the eggs were laid in the last rather than 

 the first part of the time in which the queen had the comb. 

 That is, if I gave the comb on one day at noon and took it 

 away the next day at noon, very likely most or all the eggs 

 were laid during the latter half of the 24 hours. The crowd 

 of other work upon me will account for the irregular hours 

 at which the work was done. 



Allow me to name the different combs by the first five 

 letters of the alphabet. They were given to and taken 

 from No. 84 as follows : 



Comb <7, given June 28, 10 a.m.; taken June 29, 12 m. 

 Comb />, given June 29, 12 m.; taken June 30, 2 p.m. 

 Comb c, given July 1, 4 p.m.; taken July 3, 10 a.m. 

 Comb </, given July 3, 10 a.m.; taken July 4, 10 a.m. 

 Comb e. given July 4, 10 a.m.; taken July S, 10 a.m. 

 Each of these combs, when it was taken from No. 84, 

 was put in an upper story of No. 54 over an excluder. No. 

 54 was a tolerably strong colony with a laying queen. The 

 combs were merely put in this upper story for safe-keeping, 

 the bees taking- good care of the eggs and larva;. 



July 5, at 4 p.m., I took from No. 54 its queen and aU 

 its combs of brood except the five combs for experiment. 



July 6, at 10;30 a.m., I examined to see if any progress 

 had been made. The colony had now been queenless 18 

 hours 30 minutes, and I found queen-cells started, but not 

 entirely where I expected. 



Comb a had no queen-cell, neither were any started on 

 it later. Counting that the egg hatches three da3's after 

 it is laid, the youngest larva in comb a must have been at 

 this time about 3 days 22'j hours old, or 22'2 hours too old 

 for a good queen, if the scientists are right in telling us 

 that the worker-larva? are weaned at three days old. 



Comb d had two queen-cells started on it. The oldest 

 larva in this comb must have been not more than 3 days 

 22' 2 hours old, and the youngest not less than 2 days 20j^ 

 hours old. 



Comb r had eight queen-cells. Two of them had hoods 

 built over them, the rest only showed the cells enlarged and 

 an extra amount of pap. No larva in this comb could have 

 been more than one day IS'i hours old. The youngest 

 were probably not more than 24^2 hours old. 

 On the other combs I found no queen-cells. 

 I very much regret that nothing more precise can be 

 said about the cellson comb 6. I cannot prove positively 

 that the two cells started on it may not have contained 

 larva; 3 days 22'; hours old. To make this possible, how- 

 ever, the queen must have commenced laying in this comb 

 the minute it was put in hive 84, while the probability is 

 that she did not begin laying there for some hours after- 

 ward. Moreover, the cells were started at least some little 

 time before the observation was made, so something must 

 be deducted from their age at starting, on that score. Be- 

 sides, the fact that four times as many cells were started on 

 comb, (- as on comb l>, the larva> in c being less than two days 

 old, hardly looks as if they would /rt/cr the oldest larvs in h 

 while at the same time they preferred anything so much 

 younger as the larva? in c But I must leave others to form 

 their own judgment. 



If the bees had askt my advice in the matter they prob- 

 ably would have done somewhat differenth'. I should have 

 said to them, " So long as a larva is only three days old, it's 

 all right for a queen ; and as you're in a hurry for another 

 queen you'd better start all your cells on comb 6." But 

 thev didn't ask my advice. 



July 7, 4 p.m. Three more queen-cells on comb b. 

 These were started from larva? 2 days 20;< hours old, or 

 older. No cells were started on comb b at any later time. 



Comb (■ has 16 cells, two of them being emptied of their 

 contents. No larva in this comb could have been more 

 than three days old at the time of this observation. 

 No queen-cells on combs (/ and e. 



July 8, 4 p.m. Comb;- has another cell, making 15 on 

 it (not counting the two that were emptied). 



Comb (/ has its first cell started over a larva that was 

 less than 2 days 6 hours old. 



July 10, 11:30 a.m. No additional cells on comb c. 

 Comb (/ three has additional cells, these having been 

 started over larva? less than 4 days V,i hours old, and they 

 might have been not more than 30 hours old. 



July 11. 8 a.m. Comb c has 17 cells. If there is no mis- 

 take in "previous observations, the two additional cells on 

 this comb must have been built over larva? at least 4 days 

 1!2 hours old. That would surely be taking too old larvas 

 when younger were present. There is a bare possibility 

 that these two cells were overlookt before, and were now 

 more easily seen when sealed. But I give it just as I find it 

 in the notes taken more than two months ago. 



Comb (/ has six cells, the last two started over larva: 

 less than 4 days 22 hours old, and possibly not more than 

 3 davs I'i hours old. 



July 12. 9 a.m. Comb d has 8 cells, the last two started 

 over larviv less than 5 days 23 hours old, and possibly not 

 more than 3 davs 22 hours old. 



Comb f has three cells, the first it has had. These cells 



