Tmm MMERicMK mmw jo-iumhm:!*.. 



135 



3. A cap made of ^-incli lumber, with 

 comb roof. The cap should rest on 

 cleats around the hive within J -inch of 

 .the top of the brood-chamber. — M. 

 Mahin. 



1. You will save the bees a gi-eat 

 deal of unnecessaiy work by having 

 the inside smooth. They will propolize 

 a rough surface. 2. If you have no 

 circular saw to make hand-holes, a 

 cleat nailed around the hive on the 

 outside near the top is just as good. 3. 

 A board cleated to prevent warping is 

 just as good as anything. — Eugene 

 Secor. 



1. It would be preferable to have 

 the lumber dressed on both sides. 2. 

 With a buzz-saw, set wabbling on the 

 mandrel. 3. When we cannot get 

 lumber wide eno\igh to cover the en- 

 tire top, and are obliged to make two- 

 piece lids^ we cut a saw kerf at the 

 bottom of the inside joints i-inch deep, 

 and insert a tin, V-shaped. Of course 

 all lids should have at least two coats 

 of good paint. — J. M. Hambaugh. 



1. It is not necessary to have the 

 lumber planed on the inside, although 

 I prefer it so, but in your case, put the 

 rough side in. 2. By setting a rip-saw 

 wabbling, and then get some one who 

 understands it, to tell you how to fix 

 the rests, and let the pieces down on 

 the saw, and take them up again with- 

 out sawing your fingers off. 3. We 

 have no trouble from rain or wind, and 

 do not want any " cap " of any kind. — 

 James Heddon. 



1. If the lumber is ordinarily smooth 

 from the saw, there is no need of 

 dressing the inside of the board. I 

 have used a number of hives made in 

 that way, and they are as good as any. 

 2. In the absence of machinery to cut 

 the "hand-holes" with a saw set wab- 

 bling, you can lay a J-inch strip of 

 wood about 3 inches below the top of 

 the end-piece of the hive, and draw a 

 line on sach side of the strip, so as to 

 be about 3J inches long ; then with the 

 the point of a sharp pocket-knife, trace 

 the lines, cutting as deep as you can 

 conveniently ; and then with a sharp, 

 }-inch chisel, make a cut slanting to- 

 wards the centre at each end of the 

 lines, pry out the " chip," and clean 

 out nicely with the chisel. I can cut 

 the hand-holes quite rapidly in this 

 way. 3. I do not know what you 

 mean b}' a "cap." I use a flat, cleated 

 hive-cover, and a water-tight shade- 

 board over it. — G. W. Demaree. 



1. It is not absolutely necessary, but 

 it would be vei-y slovenly to have it 

 rough. 2. A cutter-head does the 

 work neatly, but a wabbling saw will 

 do it well enough, if any hand-holes are 

 thought to be necessary. 3. Opinions 

 differ, but any cap will do that cannot 

 ea-sily he blown oft', and which is water- 

 tight. — The Editor. 



GOOD QUEENS. 



Queens not Reared by Natural 

 Swarming Inferior. 



Written for the American Bee Journal 

 BY G. M. DOOLITTLB. 



On page 790 of the Bee Journal for 

 1887, appeared a very interesting arti- 

 cle from the pen of that sharp, but 

 good-natured writer, G. W. Demaree. 

 I am really glad he wrote that article, 

 for it gives me a chance to say some 

 things which I have desired to say for 

 some time. But I have no desire to do 

 so, in aught but a kindly spirit, and 

 for good, regarding the improvement 

 of our queens ; for the spirit of con- 

 troversy should never enter into any 

 discussion if we would benefit the 

 world, and those with whom we dis- 

 agree. 



I accord to Mr. Demaree, that 

 " right to his own views " which he 

 gives to me, most willingly, and would 

 not have said a word further, were it 

 not that he seems to think that my 

 articles on the subject of queen-rear- 

 ing are " mere assertions " which are 

 based on " mistaken theory, except so 

 far as I bring my own experience as 

 proof of the soundness of my position." 

 Did I desire so to do, I could bring to 

 my rescue regarding the superiority of 

 queens reared by natural swarming, 

 such great lights as Grimm, Gallup, 

 Heddon, etc. ; but as Mr. Demaree 

 only lays down his theories and experi- 

 ence beside mine, I consider it unneces- 

 sarj- to do so. 



My experience with " artificial " 

 queens dates back to 1870, when I be- 

 came " ci-azy " on the subject of queen- 

 rearing — crazy about that kind which 

 '•costs the apiarist nothing," or but a 

 trifle at least, and so I reared lots of 

 these cheap queens, only to find in 

 1872-73 that my apiary was almost 

 ruined by the death of queens, dying 

 of old age after a period of only eight 

 months to a year and a half had 

 elapsed after they had left their cells. 



When the " dollar "-queen business 

 was first started, I opposed it, as nearly 

 all of our older bee-kSepers know, op- 

 posing it on the ground that so many 

 queens of the kind " which cost noth- 

 intf," would be put upon the market. 

 I have never fought such queens as 

 Mr. Demaree rears, only so far as the 

 claim is concerned that they are lietter 

 than those reared by natural swarm- 

 ing. My main eftort has been to im- 

 press upon the minds of all, that we 

 as apiarists should try to rear queens 

 of the highest type for honey-produc- 

 tion, gentleness, good wintering qual- 



ities, length of life, and strength of 

 workers, enabling them to fly further, 

 fly faster, and endure more hardships 

 than their ancestors did. Has this not 

 been a worthy object ? 



It is hardly fair for Mr. Demaree to 

 take his best specimens of queens 

 reared under the greatest care and 

 skill at his command, and compare 

 them with the poorest of natural- 

 swarming queens. I am as well aware 

 as any one, that even " queens reared 

 by natural swarming" can be so 

 abused as to have the queens of little 

 value, in these days of controlling 

 after-swarms by the many methods 

 put forth. Candidly, did Mr. Demaree 

 ever try my plan of rearing queens by 

 natural swarming, where half of the 

 swarm is returned to await the devel- 

 opment of the young queens ? And 

 after such queens were laying, did he 

 ever compare them with his that were 

 reared under "scientific breeding?" 

 If not, I wish he would do so and re- 

 port. But to return : 



Wliy I opposed the whole " dollar "- 

 queen traftic, was because queens un- 

 der this name, sent out for 16 to $9 a 

 dozen, were reared by no " scientific 

 breeding," but by all the poorest plans 

 and tricks known to the trade. 



To illustrate : A few years ago I 

 wrote to a prominent queen-breeder, 

 whose name stands very high, for a 

 " dollar "-queen. He replied as fol- 

 lows : " I am shipping queens by 

 nearly every mail, but as I am desir- 

 ous of your good opinion, I would like 

 to rear one for you when I rear my 

 own, which I am now preparing to do. 

 If you can wait, I shall be pleased to 

 have you do so." If this queen-breeder 

 was rearing and sending out queens, 

 equal to queens reared by natural 

 swarming, or as good as Mr. Demaree 

 rears, why did ho wi-sh that I should 

 wait? His pretensions in the bee- 

 papers, that queens from the egg 

 " were better than these from natural 

 swarming," with such an acknowledge- 

 ment from him, amount to nothing 

 with me ; and it was at this class of 

 queen-rearers that my article was 

 aimed, to which Mr. Demaree refers. 



If all queens, reared and sent out, 

 were as Mr. D. represents his to be, I 

 should not have been called upon to 

 have said a word. That they are not, 

 is often proven by my correspondence. 

 One writes in the month of May : 

 "What is the trouble with the queens 

 that I have bought ? Last week I found 

 three dead in front of their hives. 

 This leaves but two out of six intro- 

 duced last fall. The season before, 

 out of three introduced in August, I 

 had only one left in the spring, and 

 she failed in June." 



Another says : " Out of nine queens 

 purchased, seven did not live six 



