234 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



As to propolis mixing with wax, just 

 take a lot of old comb, divide it into two 

 parts, boil one lot hard, and treat the 

 other carefully, arid see which wax has 

 propolis in it. It is hardl}' fair to cun- 

 dem these things until you try them. 



Providence, R.I., July 20, 1899. 

 BEES CHOOSING LARV.^i FOR QUEENS. 



Also a few Last Words about Words. 



C. C. MILLER. 



• T7RIHNI) Ilutch- 

 _--_ ^ inson, — Y o u 



M^^^\ think 1 will ad- 



K I mit that anv one 



.^^ wmp reading my writ- 



ings might be ex- 

 cused for believ- 

 ing that I thought 

 all queens would 

 be good reared in 

 a colony with the 

 queen removed. 

 It is possible, yet I certainly never had 

 any such thought, and I should be ob- 

 liged to have pointed out any expression 

 that would convey that idea. Indeed, I 

 have put myself on record more than 

 once as believing the contrary. Perhaps 

 too much silence on that point, however, 

 may have been misleading. The fact is 

 that it isn't the easiest thing in the world 

 never to leave any chance for misunder- 

 standing. For example, your heading on 

 page 215 might be misunderstood. It 

 reads: "Dr. Miller explains; and admits 

 that .some of the queens will be poor when 

 the bees choose the larvie." Some might 

 understand that to mean, that I admit 

 that when several colonies are unciueen- 

 ed and left entirely to themselves some 

 of the colonies will have poorer queens 

 than they would have had if nothing had 

 been left in the hive older than just 

 hatched larvie. I certainly do not admit 



anything of the kind, but believe that 

 when larvce of all ages are present the 

 queen that will be reared Dy that colony 

 if meddled with no more than to remove 

 the queen, will be just as good as if the 

 breeder most carefully selected the larvfe 

 out of the same hive. 



Your large experience as a queen breed- 

 er has given you chances for observation 

 that I have not had, and I greatly respect, 

 on that account, any expression of opinion 

 of yours in that realm. But when some 

 of your views are so directly opposed to 

 my own observations, even though those 

 observations have been on a limited 

 scale, I cannot help wondering whether 

 it may not be possible that you got your 

 impressions in a kind of general wa}' with- 

 out having had 3^our attention minutely 

 called to the points on which we differ. 

 If you are doing some queen-rearing after 

 receiving this, I wish it might be conven- 

 ient for you to make some observations 

 and report specifically. If it should be 

 convenient for you to do this, would you 

 kindly report whether you found larvte 

 more than three days old chosen for roy- 

 alty any time within three days after re- 

 moving the queen ? And in the case 

 "when just hatched larvae, and eggs are 

 given, and no older larvtc," would you 

 carefully keep track of the queen cells 

 started, and tell us when the last ones are 

 started ? With your attention particular- 

 ly directed to the matter, if you should 

 re])ort that in a particular case you saw 

 larvte more than three days old made a 

 first choice, and that a careful count show- 

 ed that no queen cells were started 48 

 hours after the removal of the queen, it 

 would be much more helpful in settling 

 the problem than a general reference to 

 past experience. 



.\nd now 



.\ WORD TO CRITIC TAYLOR. 



I said that if a writer finds a word in a 

 reputable dictionary he ought to be al- 

 lowed to use it as there given. To this, 

 Bro. Taylor, you reply, page 207, "Cer- 

 tainly, and no one I hope proposes to 



