1895. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



793 



Cai;)adiar) Bcedon;)^ 



Apiarist and Bee-Kecper. 



On page 759, Dr. Miller questions whetlier there is any 

 well-grounded distinction between these two terms. He says 

 "the dictionary" defines "apiarist " as a " bee-keeper," and 

 wishes the "gentleman across the line " to tell us where he 

 gets his definition for " apiarist." The reply is, from " the 

 dictionary," i. c, from tny dictionary, which defines an " api- 

 arist " as "one who keeps an apiary." An apiary means 

 more than one or two forlorn bee-hives run by the rule of 

 thumb, which is all many can show who must, I suppose, be 

 called "bee-keepers," because they keep bees. "One who 

 keeps an apiary," be it large or small, must be supposed to 

 have a kind of establishment comprising, besides his colonies 

 of bees, a lot of " fixins," such as supers, section-boxes, ex- 

 tractor, escapes, queen-cages, nucleus boxes, uncapping-knife, 

 smoker, veil, possibly gloves, and if he clips his queens' wings, 

 as the Doctor does, a delicate pair of scissors. The possession 

 of these and various other appurtenances implies knowledge 

 and skill in the use of them. I suppose " the dictionary," 

 which means, in the Doctor's case, Ms dictionary and in my 

 case mine, is very like "my doxy " and " your doxy," as a 

 definition of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. 



But I think the Doctor will agree with me that in the 

 nomenclature of bee-culture we need a term that expresses 

 more than the bare fact of keeping bees. If "apiarist " is 

 not satisfactory, how would "apiologist" do? That means 

 "a student of bees." Most assuredly, there is many a bee- 

 keeper who cannot be properly styled " a student of bees." 

 The necessity for some such distinction is constantly making 

 itself apparent. For example, we find those who consider 

 themselves masters of the pursuit in the habit of saying of 

 this and that man, of whose abilities they have an indifferent 

 opinion, " He is no bee-keeper." Perhaps the person spoken 

 of has 50 hives of bees or more. If he has a solitary colony, 

 he is a bee-keeper, so that the assertion made concerning him, 

 is, in the literal meaning of it, a libel and a falsehood. Of 

 course it is easy to use a qualifying adjective — e. g., " he is a 

 good bee-keeper,'' or " he is a poor bee-keeper," but still a 

 single word that conveys the idea of a man being more or less 

 skilled in keeping bees, would seem to be convenient, if not 

 necessary. 



^ I ^ 



Ttae Nortli American Bee-Keepers' Union. 



The American Bee Journal of Nov. 2.S contains the 

 Report of the Amalgamation Committee appointed at the 

 Toronto Conventiso to arrange the terms of union, between 

 the North American Bee-Keepers' Association and the National 

 Bee-Keepers' Union. So far as the first-named organization is 

 concerned, the action of the Committee appears to be final, 

 said Committee having been appointed to "arrange the terms 

 with full power to perfect the same." The only question 

 remaining to be settled is whether the members of the Rational 

 Bee-Keepers' Union accept the overture made them. This 

 they will undoubtedly do, because it is a case of absorption, 

 since nothing whatever remains of the other body save the 

 one feature of an annual meeting. 



The object of the North American was to promote the 

 general interests of the pursuit of bee-culture, mainly by the 

 discussion of apiarian topics for mutual improvement. The 

 object of the Union was to defend the rights of bee-keepers 

 against aggression. I quite expected that these two objects 

 would be blended in the amalgamation scheme. Instead of 

 this, the distinctive object of the North American Bee-Keepers' 

 Association is dropped altogether, and only that of the Union 

 retained. It would have been easy to have consolidated the 

 two articles relating to the objects of the two organizations, in 

 some such way as the following : 



Its objects shall be to protect the interests of its members, 

 to defend their rights, to form a bond of union for mutual 

 protection, and to promote the general interests of the pursuit 

 of bee-culture throughout North America. 



Why this was not done is best known to the Committee. 



There is also a conspicuous indefiniteness as to what in- 

 terests of members are to be protected. Probably it will be 

 said that their apicultural interests would be understood to be 

 those intended, but it would have been better to have had the 



fact stated. Three times over, defence of rights and mutual 

 protection are stated, surely the nature of the rights adverted 

 to might have been mentioned once. 



But what most concerns Canadian beedom, is the entire 

 absence of all recognition of Canada, except so far as it is part 

 of North America. In this respect it is only on a parallel 

 with Mexico. The constitution of the old Association dis- 

 tinctly said : "This organization shall be known as 'The 

 North American Bee-Keepers' Association,' and shall include 

 in its territory all of the United States and Canada." All this 

 has been struck out. There were three Canadians on the 

 Committee who do not appear to have objected to their country 

 being dropped in silence. They will have a chance to explain 

 and defend themselves at the annual meeting of the Ontario 

 Bee-Keepers' Association, in January. 



The amalgamation scheme had, and has, no warmer 

 friend and well-wisher than the writer of these lines. He sin- 

 cerely regrets that he cannot speak more approvingly of the 

 work of the Committee. The object aimed at — union, is good 

 — excellent ; but the splice might certainly have been made in 

 abetter and more artistic manner. The " high contracting 

 parties " have not distinguished themselves by any large 

 amount of diplomatic skill, constructive ability, or even- 

 handed justice. Perhaps it is not too late to supply the omis- 

 sions and remedy the defects which have been pointed out. 



So much as has been said appeared to be demanded in 

 duty to Canadian beedom. — [See page 797. — Editor.] 



Evolution of Queen-Bees —Clipping ^Vings. 



On page 747, Mr. Allen Pringle discusses my argument 

 in opposition to the clipping of queen-bees. He approves of 

 it so far as relates to the evolution of queens, but objects 

 when their original creation is adverted to. I am amazed at 

 his assertion that Evolution and Creation are opposing philos- 

 ophies, for surely he is well sware that many of the best 

 scientific authorities hold firmly to both. I think it was the 

 eminent botanist, Dr. Asa Gray, who first pointed out that 

 there was no necessary conflict between Creation and Evolu- 

 tion ; that, in fact. Evolution was one of the most important 

 laws of Creation. 



Mr. Pringle dogmatically asserts that I cannot hold the 

 two philosophies of Evolution and Creation. I don't consider 

 them two philosophies. If they can be so properly regarded, 

 then I firmly believe them both. I do not know by what right 

 he assumes to grant me permission to have my choice of the 

 two systems, but refuses to permit me to cling to both. It is, 

 perhaps, because to his mind it seems impossible to hold both. 

 But no such apparent impossibility troubles me. To me they 

 seem entirely harmonious, and the one the natural and neces- 

 sary counterpart of the other. 



When man began to develop the queen-bee, flight was one 

 of her essential functions. I call it an essential function be- 

 cause she had to transmit it to her progeny, or they would be 

 useless for the main purpose of their existence, namely, to 

 gather nectar and convey it to the hive. The "fine point" of 

 my argument is this: That if the queen, by being deprived of 

 her wings, comes under the operation of that law of Nature 

 by virtue of which disuse of wings leads to deterioration, and 

 finally extirpation of them, it may be that serious injury may 

 be caused by the process of clipping. 



So far as the reductio ad nbsurdum is concerned, I do not 

 see that the cases cited are parallel. The dehorned stock are 

 not unfitted for reproducing their kind by being deprived of 

 their horns. If the horns should grow " small by degrees and 

 beautifully less," it would be no detriment to the cattle tribes, 

 but rather an advantage, at least in the eyes of those who go 

 to so much trouble and expense in getting rid of them. The 

 use of the knife on young male animals is merely carrying out 

 Nature's law of the survival of the fittest. These inferior 

 males are not permitted to reproduce their kind, because of 

 unfitness for the exercise of the function. There is nothing 

 in the idea of the creation of the " scrub " or the " crab " to 

 imply that these crude forms are the best and cannot be im- 

 proved upon, and it must be borne in mind that the means by 

 which the "splendid Durham" and other breeds are pro- 

 duced, do not involve the extirpation of any function what- 

 ever, but only by selection of the best types the effort is made 

 to secure the highest development possible of already existing 

 and essential functions. 



I have said that I not only consider Evolution and Crea- 

 tion harmonious, but as the necessary counterparts of each 

 other. To conceive of Evolution without Creation is to pro- 

 vide no means of effecting improvement, for whence came the 

 tendency to evolve and the power to do so ? To conceive of 



