374 



'THE mimmmi€Mf€ bb® j©^Ri«ai,. 



t^^^-J-^C-^* ^.^>..^^.».*..^A.^.A^.A.^.A.^.AJ^ 



.^^.^^^^^^■^-^ r '--''**-■- *^*^*"*'*^*'^^:^.^,^-^^^^_^Tl*l^*-_^^^^^*^^^'*^^^ ^^^' 



f 



I§ Wewl y-Made Foundation More 

 Acceptable tlitm wlien Older i 



Written for the American Bee Journal 



Query 548.— 1. Will foundation one or 

 two years old be drawn out by the bees as 

 quickly and satisfactorily as newly-made 

 foundation? 3. If not, is there any proctss 

 by which it can be renewed so as to make it 

 as good as newly-made foundation ? 3. Will 

 it pay to use old foundation ?— Indiana. 



1. My experience saj's it will. 3. 

 Just as well new. — G. M. Doolittle. 



1. Yes. 2. Steaming it slightly will 

 soften it. 3. Yes, undoubteclly, if not 

 dirty. — Dadant & Son. 



1. No. 2. Put it in hot water. 3. 

 Yes, I use it without doing anything to 

 it. — C. C. Miller. 



1. Yes, nearly. 2. It js claimed 

 that softening foundation with warm 

 water makes it "good as new." 3. 

 Yes. — R. L. TAYLOR. 



2. If softened by dipping in warm 

 water before using, it will work satis- 

 factorily. 3. Yes.— A. B. Mason. 



1. Yes. 2 Dip it in warm water, 

 or place it in the sun for a few mo- 

 ments. 3. Yes. H. D. Cutting. 



1. Not quite. 2. Steam it. 3. Yes, 

 if not too old.— J. M. Hambaugh. 



1. There is little if any difi'erence. 

 This is answer enough for all the ques- 

 tions. — James Heduon. 



If old foundation is placed in hot 

 water for a few minutes it will become 

 just as good as new, and the bees will 

 work it out just as well. — P.L. Viallon. 

 1. I have observed very little differ- 

 ence. 2. If heated until quite soft, 

 either by dipping it in hot water, or by 

 exposing it to a temperature of 100' 

 or more, it will be as good as new. — 

 M. Mahin. 



1. Yes, if your foundation is all 

 right in the first place. 3. Yes. I have 

 used foundation two- years old, and 

 coidd see no difference between it and 

 that freshly made. — Mrs. L. Harrison. 

 Old foundation becomes hard by at- 

 mospheric influence, but can be " an- 

 nealed," so to speak, by exposing it to 

 a warm sun sufiiciont to soften it. — J. 

 P. H. Brown. 



Yes, if .softened, I think it will. I 

 always use foundation. If the colon}' 

 is not vei^j' strong, I warm the founda- 

 tion so as to have it soft. — A. J. Cook. 

 1. That depends much upon how it 

 has b(>en kept. If allowed to freeze, 

 it becomes hard, and is worked out by 

 the bees .slowly. But if kept in a warm 

 room it remains soft and pliable, and I 

 doubt if age injures it, if it is put in a 

 tight box with papers between the 

 ayers. — G. L. Tinker. 



1. There is but little difference. 2. 

 It can be dipped in warm water to 

 freshen it, but I do not think it is 

 necessary, as the bees clustering on it 

 will render it plialjle. 3. Yes. — C. H. 



DiBBERN. 



1. If the wax is not injured in the 

 manufacture of foundation, age does 

 not affect it. 2. The heat of the hive 

 will "renew it," all that is necessary. 

 3. Yes, it will. I prefer new founda- 

 tion because it is apt to be cleaner than 

 old. — J. M. Shuck. 



1. If it has been kept closely packed 

 in a box it is as good as any, but if it 

 has been exposed to the air it becomes 

 dry and hard. 2. If the foundation 

 has become dry and hard it can be re- 

 newed by soaking it in warm water, 

 sweetened with honey. 3. It pays me. 

 — G. W. Demaree. 



1. I have found no trouble in using 

 it. 2. Wanning it slightly is said to 

 improve it, but I have not found any 

 material difference in so doing. 3. It 

 certainly does with myself. — J. E. Pond. 



1. I cannot say from verified ex- 

 periment, but have used more or less 

 of it, thinking (whether true or not, I 

 cannot say) that when the tempera- 

 ture is right for working wax it would 

 be utilized just the same. — E. Secor. 



1. Yes ; if it has been properly kept 

 in a box, it will be just as good as that 

 just made. 2. If it has been exposed 

 to the air, and become hard, dipping 

 it in hot Water or placing it in the sun 

 will soften it. 3. Yes. — The Editor. 



Purity 



of Drones from a ms- 

 ntaled Queen. 



Written for the American Dec Journal. 



Query 549.— 1. If the drone progeny of a 

 pure Italian queen that has mated with a pure 

 drone of the Gorman variety, is as pure as its 

 mother, why is not the ajjamic progeny of a 

 pure Italian queen as capable of performing 

 the functions of the male in fecundation, as 

 one from a fecundated queen ? 2. Will the 

 drones of a pure black queen, that has mated 

 with a pure Italian drone, display evidence of 

 Italian lineage or markings ?— L. 



2. No. — Dadant & Son. 

 are. 2. No. — James Hed- 



1. It is. 



1. They 

 don. 



Please a.sk " the Professor." — H. D. 

 Cutting. 



1. Oh, dear ! I wish I knew. 2. Yes. 

 — A. B. Mason. 



1. Give me something easier. 2. No. 

 — Mrs. L. Harrison. 



I will leave this for expert queen- 

 breeders to answer. — C. H. Dibbern. 



1. That is the question. Why are 

 they not ? Wlio knows ? 2. I think 

 not. — J. M. Hambaugh. 



1 I suppose it is as capable if reared 

 under as favorable circumstances. 2. 

 No.— R. L. Taylor. 



1. I think that it is. Do you know 

 that it is not ? 2. They do not in our 

 apiary. — A. J. Cook. 



1. Send 15 cents to the editor of the 

 American Bee Journal, and he will 

 send j-ou " Dzierzon's Theory." 2. I 

 never could detect any. — P.L. Viallon. 



1. Such progeny is, if developed un- 

 der as favorable conditions as the 

 drones of a fecundated queen. 2. I 

 have never found any such display. — 

 J. P. H. Brown. 



1. Has it been fidly proven that what 

 you assume ■ to be true in the latter 

 part of your subjunctive proposition is 

 true ? 2. I do not know from actual 

 observation. — Eugene Secor. 



I have not had experience enough 

 along that line to entitle me to any 

 decided opinions. I think, however, 

 that di-ones from a mismated queen 

 are not exactly pure. — G M.Doolittlb. 



All that is known of this matter has 

 been pretty thoroughly discussed in 

 the books and bee-papers. I have 

 nothing new, startling, or even plausi- 

 ble to add to what has already been 

 iterated and reiterated. — J. M. Shuck. 



1. Isn't she ? 2. I would like to 

 look in your face before answering. 

 If you are common every-day folks, I 

 answer " no ;" if you are not a bee- 

 keeper but a theorist, I answer " cer- 

 tainly." — C. C. Miller. 



This question opens up a subject too 

 immense to be treated satisfactorily in 

 this department. Read " Dzierzon's 

 Theory," and judge for yourself. Any 

 answer will only be theoretical, and I 

 differ from many in my views upon the 

 question. — J. E. PoND. 



1. I believe the di-one progeny of a 

 virgin queen or of a laying worker 

 reared in drone cells as capable of 

 fecundating queens as any other 

 drones. Any egg from a laying 

 worker will produce as large and per- 

 fect a drone as one from a fecundated 

 queen, if it has the same treatment. 2. 

 No. — M. Mahin. 



All that I have been able to demon- 

 strate by practical experiments results 

 in this conclusion, to my inind, viz : 

 1. Virgin queens produce drones with- 

 out the agency of the male. I have 

 demonstrated this by repeated experi- 

 ments. 2. Drones that are the progeny 

 of a virgin queen, are impotent, and 

 not capable of propagation. The 

 peculiarity of the spring seasons in my 

 locality has given me the opportunity 

 to test this matter, and drones of vir- 

 gin queens have failed to mate with 

 the young queens in every case under 

 my observation. — G. W. Demaree. 



1. That is a pertinent question bear- 

 ing on the Dzierzon theory. If the 

 m.uting drone affects or changes the 

 habits and instincts of the queen, as 



