296 



'TMM M'mMMlVMM MMM JO-limMMLf. 



If this is not convincing, I will refer 

 to the American Bee Journal for 

 1866, page 72, in an article written by 

 our lamented Samuel Wagner : " All 

 these sections or ekes ai-e of equal size, 

 without bottoms, and with an opening 

 6 inches square in the top. The bees, 

 thus provided .... will usually fill two 

 or more such sections with combs, 

 brood, and honey." On page 85 : " The 

 mode of dividing stocks [to make 

 artificial swarms] by severing one or 

 more ekes or sections from a hive, 

 should be condemned and rejected, 

 causing a lamentable destruction of 

 bees and brood.'''' 



The other engraving shows a Soria 

 " eke," with spaces. It is easy to 



notice that the bai's to support the 

 combs, in this eke, are placed a little 

 below the side of the eke, to aft'ord a 

 space between two ekes or sections, 

 a la Heddon. 



As soon as tlie book of Soria was 

 published, about 43 years ago, a friend 

 of mine, a notary in my village, was so 

 enthusiastic about changing, inverting, 

 etc., of these ekes, that for two years 

 he hived his swarms in Soria hives. 

 But these spaces, cutting the combs 

 horizontally, interfered with the laying 

 of the queens, and the crop was there- 

 by decreased. 



How many times in my cai'eer of 

 bee-keeping, have I seen such inven- 

 tions praised for several years, then 

 disappear ! The Soria hive was not 

 alone to receive such acclamations of 

 short duration ; the Debeauvoys hive 

 was awarded medals on medals, and 

 its inventor published six editions of 

 his book ! Wliore are these hives now? 

 I dare say that, in the whole of France, 

 it would be impossible to find even one 

 specimen of them. I was able to ap- 

 preciate their qualities and defects. 

 The " eke hive " was easy of' manipu- 

 lation for the bee-keeper, but hindered 

 the laying of the queen. The Debeau- 

 voys was good for bees, but difficult to 

 manipulate. Other bee-keepers of 

 France and Gernianji invented verti- 

 cally-divisible brood-chambers, which, 

 praised also for years, liave disappeai'- 

 ed before the movable-comb hive. 



Most of the partisans of the new 

 Heddon hive, using, as he does, Lang- 

 stroth hives, reduced to 6 or 8 frames, 

 are unable to see whether the laying 

 of queens is hindered by the spaces be- 

 tween the ekes ; for, in their small 

 Langstroth hives, the laying is even 

 more decreased ; therefore, the}' may 

 answer, with full confidence, as they 

 did in the American Bee Journal, on 

 page 54, that they do not consider the 

 bee-space an impediment to the laying 

 capacity of a queen. 



Mr. R. L. Taylor, in answer to the 

 question on page 39, on the iniluence 

 of the spaces on the number of bees, 

 in comparison with hives having full 

 combs, writes that one of his col- 

 onies in the new Heddon hive pro- 

 duced, of comb honey, five times the 

 average of his apiary, and about twice 

 as much as the best of his colonies 

 in Simplicity hives, and it was because 

 of their numbers that they did it. Of 

 course, as the veracity of Mr. Taylor 

 cannot be questioned, such a result 

 struck me dumb. All my experience — 

 all my theories on bee-culture — had to 

 be put aside, and I had to study the 

 principles of the new school. A hard 

 task for a man of my age ! 



But I never accept what is seen at 

 the surface without looking at the bot- 

 tom of things. What did I see in this 

 case ? The Heddon hive of Mr. Taylor, 

 containing 16 half frames, oifered to 

 the queen a surface of 16xl7jx4r3, or 

 1,344 square inches, while his 8-frame 

 Simplicity had but 8xl6jx8J, or 1.136 

 square inches. This difference of 208 

 inches, offered to the queen of the 

 Heddon liive, about 12,000 more cells, 

 in which she laid 12,000 more eggs 

 every three weeks. (See Feb. 8, page 

 85.) 



Mr. Taylor was mistaken in putting 

 to the credit of the spaces between 

 the ekes, that which was the result of 

 the enlarged size. No doubt the same 

 mistake was made by Mr. Heddon, for 

 his new hives contain 20 half frames, 

 or 1,780 square inches, while his Lang- 

 stroth hives contain but 8 frames, or 

 1,136 square inches. The difference 

 is 644 inches, or 36,000 more cells. 



These facts not only are in favor of 

 enlarging the hives, but they answer 

 also to the new, and, to my mind, 

 strange idea of Mr. Hutchinson, that 

 "It does not matter if our queens are 

 hindered in their laying, for we do not 

 make hives simply for the convenience 

 of the queen." (See page 54.) Ac- 

 cording to nij' experience the conven- 

 ience of the queen is the convenience 

 of the bee-keeper, for the more our 

 queens lay, the more bees are in the 

 hive for the harvest. 



The crop of Mr. Taylor would have 

 been increased, had most of his colo- 

 nies been as populous as the one which 



gave him this large harvest. Then it 

 is profitable to provide our queens with 

 the means of laying abundantly, and 

 to feel happy. But nothing is better 

 than a large brood-chamber to attain 

 such a result. 

 Hamilton, Ills. 



[Knowing that our readers were not 

 familiar with the " ekes " and "nadirs" 

 used in Europe, and mentioned by Mr. 

 Dadant on page 119, we copied from 

 the British Bee Journal an explanation 

 of these terms simply for general in- 

 formation. Perhaps that was unneces- 

 sary, as our friend Dadant intimatjs — 

 thinking that he made the matter suffi- 

 ciently plain. We certainly had no 

 intention of interfering with, or taking 

 any part in the discussion on hand. 



Quoting from the American Bee 

 Journal for 1866, pages 72 and 85. 

 Mr. Dadant says that those articles 

 were written by " our lamented Sam- 

 uel Wagner." By referring to page 9 

 of that same volume, it will be seen 

 that Mr. Wagner credited those very 

 articles to " an experienced and intelli- 

 gent German " — he would not thus 

 refer to himself. 



As to the engravings in Mr. Dadant's 

 article — the fir.^t shows the French 

 hive of Palteau, which had fixed bars 

 or slats, the surplus honey to be cut 

 out of any section desired by the bee- 

 keeper. 



The second engra^-ing represents a 

 Soria hive which shows a principle 

 which was used in a hive with 

 round sections without movable frames, 

 figured and described in Hartlib's 

 "Reformed Commonwealth of Bees," 

 published in London in 1655, and 

 mentioned by us at the Indianapolis 

 Convention in 1886. (See the report 

 on page 663.) 



Certainly neither of these, nor the 

 "ekes" and "nadirs" described by 

 the item we copied from the British 

 Bee Journal, are the same as a com- 

 plete interchangeable brood-chamber, 

 liaving the movable frames. Neither 

 are those described by the "German" 

 author on page 85 of the American 

 Bee Journal for 1866 — for such 

 "ekes" required to be cut off' " bj' 

 means of a thin wire." Sucli " sections 

 or ekes" were " without bottoms," and 

 had "an opening six inches square in 

 the top " — differing materially from 



