AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



489 



Xlie lVIaid.cn and tiie^ ^e:e:. 



A little glade, 

 A patch of shade, 



A nooklet most delightful ; 

 A pretty maid. 

 Shy, half-afraid, 

 A huzzing bee most spiteful. 



A dainty flower, 

 From out the bower 



She-plucked for her adoi'ning ; 

 The jealous bee 

 Came steathily 

 And claimed it without warning. 



— K. DUNLAP. 



Queries a|id Replies. 



MaMng BreaWoint Hoiiey-Boaris, 



Query 788. — Is it advisable to retain 

 the break-joint principle in making the 

 wood-zinc queen-excluding honey-boards? 

 —J. M, B. 



Yes. — M. Mahin. 



Yes.— R. L. Taylor. 



No.— J. M. Hambaugh. 



No. — Mrs. L. Harrison. 



I do not. — G. M. DooLiTTLE. 



I do not use such boards. — J. P. H. 

 Brown. 



I think it is, though I have used no 

 others to compare. — A. J. Cook. 



I cannot observe that the break-joint 

 makes any difference. — C. C. Miller. 



I would not give 2 cents for a patent 

 " principle " (?) — A. 



on the break-joint 

 B. Mason. 



There are arguments pro and con. 

 The pros have the case, in my judgment. 

 — Eugene Secor. 



It will be better to prevent brace- 

 combs, but of less advantage for easy 

 ventilation by the bees. — Dadant & 

 Son. 



By all means. Just try both ways, if 

 you do not see the point. Use but one 

 row of holes in the zinc strip. — James 

 Heddon. 



Not at all. I make them without 

 regard to any break-joint principle, and 

 am not troubled much with burr-combs. 



— C. H. DiBBERN. 



I think not, for there are as many 

 burr-combs built in break-joint queen- 

 excluders as in those with continuous 



passage. We have few or no burr-combs, 

 as we manage with the continuous pass- 

 age queen-excluders. — G. L. Tinker. 



This is a matter that I have never 

 tested. It is a mooted question among 

 our ablest bee-keepers. In theory, it 

 looks plausible, but as tests alone will 

 qualify one to answer, I decline giving 

 an opinion, simply because I have not 

 had experience in the matter. — J. E. 

 Pond. 



In my opinion, drawn from practical 

 experience, there was never anything to 

 be gained by the break-joint "princi- 

 ple." It is not in line with modern 

 principles in bee manipulation. No set 

 of movable frames can be so evenly 

 spaced as to match a break-joint board. 

 Of course, they can be made to match 

 fixed frames, but fixed frames are but a 

 little advance from the old bee-gum or 

 box-hive. I 4»refer full sheets of zinc, 

 framed. — G. W. Demaree. 



That is a question which allows of a 

 difference of opinion among our best 

 apiarists, but those who have used the 

 break-joint principle the longest are 

 generally very much in favor of its use. 

 That is a good argument for it. — The 

 Editor. 



Keeping" Bees on Shares. 



1. When bees are taken on shares, at 

 what time should the division take 

 place ? 



2. When the owner of the bees wishes 

 to introduce new queens, who should 

 pay for the queens ? 



J. A. Wagoner. 

 Rochester, Minn. 



When bees are taken on shares the 

 agreement should be reduced to writing, 

 and all details should be stated. That 

 would save much ill-feeling and many 

 unkind remarks when a division is made. 

 In the absence of such written agree- 

 ment, the usual and reasonable course 

 would be for the owner to furnish the 

 bees, and the other to do all the neces- 

 sary work. All expenses for extra 

 queens, hives, sections, etc., to be 

 shared alike. All the swarms and honey 

 should also be shared equally. The 

 honey should be divided at any conven- 

 ient time, after it is taken from the 

 hives, when it is desired by one or both 

 parties. 



