232 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Colony or Swarm— 'Wliicli ? 



The following is a reply to our article 

 on page 72, on the above subject : 



In ray article, on page 72, on the above 

 subject, I said that I never heard a good 

 reason why 1 should change the word 

 swarm (to represent bees in a hive) to 

 the word colony. I have read carefully 

 and re-read the criticism of my article, 

 expecting to find a reason for the change, 

 but I have looked in vain.* 



After giving Webster's definition of 

 swarm, as : " especially a great number 

 of honey-bees which emigrate from a 

 hive at once, and seek new lodgings 

 under the direction of a queen ; or a like 

 body of bees united and settled perma- 

 nently in a hive;" the editor says, "if 

 the statement in the last line must settle 

 the matter, how about the sentence pre- 

 ceding it, viz., that the bees ' seek new 

 lodgings under the direction of a queen!' 

 Does that settle that matter, too ? Every 

 well informed bee-keeper will dispute 

 that assertion in the Dictionary !" 



I cannot see that the error of belief in 

 the office of the queen, has anything to 

 do with the fact that bees in a hive were 

 called a swarm. And if it invalidated 

 the definition when applied to bees in a 

 hive, it would invalidate it when applied 

 to bees in the air; and, in fact, invali- 

 date the whole Dictionary.! 



The editor says, that the definition 

 given to colony, as, "A number of 

 animals or plants living or growing 

 together," is the only one applicable to 

 bees. Well, that does not mention bees. 

 To be sure they are animals living 

 together, and may be claimed as embraced 

 in the definition. And as bees are not 

 mentioned in defining colony, and as 

 they are mentioned as being a swarm 

 when in a hive, I claim that I have the 

 case.t 



In the next paragraph I find the fol- 

 lowing sentence : "The use of the word 

 swarm for colony cannot be justified by 

 any rule of 'the language*!" Is there any 

 "rule of the language" that prohibits 

 its use ? Until a rule that prohibits it is 

 cited I can see no reason why it is not 

 perfectly proper to use it if one prefers. 

 One other thing : The word swarm is not 

 marked "obsolete," as is the case with 

 many words. l| 



Reading the criticism further, I find 

 the following : "Because it was errone- 

 ously called a swarm in 'ye olden time,' 

 no more proves its correctness or pro- 

 priety, than when the only perfect 

 female in the hive was called a king .'/" 



What proof is there that it was, or is 

 erroneous ? That is the question under 

 consideration. Proof is what is wanted. 

 I have good authority on my side. 



I willalso-quote the following language 

 of the criticism : "A swarm issues from 

 a hive for the purpose of increasing the 

 families or colonies, but when it settles 

 down to the business of house-keeping it ^ 

 is a colony, and not a swarm !" 



Webster says it is a swarm. I have 

 now done, and am willing to leave the 

 case with the intelligent jury, which 

 consists of the readers of this excellent 

 periodical. 



I believe in progression — eternal pro- 

 gression — and would not "set my face 

 against the river's course," nor "butt at 

 the storm with my puny form." 



E. L. HOLDEN. 



North Clarendon, Vt. 



* Friend Holden seems to entirely 

 mistake our argument. He quoted from 

 Webster's Dictionary a sentence which 

 had two errors in it ; and, while he repu- 

 diated one error, he tried to prove his 

 point by the other ! In order to show 

 the fallacy of su(Ji an argument we 

 asked: "If the statement in the last 

 line [which we claim to be an error] 

 must settle the matter — how about the 

 sentence preceding it ?" [an evident 

 error, admitted by all intelligent apia- 

 rists] and we asked: "Does it settle 

 that matter, too?" This we now repeat, 

 with emphasis. 



The point is this : Is the Dictionary 

 infallible ? We emphatically say, no ! 

 and this we prove hy facts, admitted by 

 all intelligent apiarists — including Mr. 

 Holden. Then -we argue, that if it has 

 made a mistake in one thing, it might 

 have made an error in another — in fact, 

 we claim that in the one sentence quoted 

 by Mr. Holden, it has made two serious 

 blunders. On either point its statement 

 is worthless, and proves nothing ! 



f It is true that the erroneous state- 

 ment made by the Dictionary about "the 

 office of the queen" does not necessarily 

 invalidate any of its other definitions, 

 (much less the whole Dictionary,) but if 

 one of its assertions is untrue, it cannot 

 be deified with infallibility ! And when 

 it defines the word "swarm" to mean a 



