THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



265 



C()\r.RATLLATI()\S. 



A B()i|iRi Contaiiiiima Hosie for Each of iis. 



AARON SXVDER. 



URIENDH.: I 

 -^ desire to 

 congratulate you 

 on the good qual- 

 ities of the July 

 Review. You 

 are waxing elo- 

 ([uent in what 

 you say, on page 

 197, where ^-ou 

 say so many 

 nice things about 

 hasswood. You liave bright prospects as 

 a writer, if you will only follow up that 

 business. 



C. Davenport gave some (juile good 

 ideas on selling honey; but if we have 

 got to get down and retail honey for less 

 than six cents a pound, it seems to me we 

 will starve out after a little. 



Dr. Mason is a wonderfully good writer 

 — knows just how to pick out and tell ali 

 the good things. 



What has become of Heddon ? I'S he 

 dead, or only sleeping ? 



I like Critic Taylor tip-top. He seems 

 to be honest and fearless — two of the best 

 qualities known. 



J. T. Hariston thinks you have taken 

 advantage of him ( See page 209). Good 

 for him. 



Your "'Catch the spirit of the times" is 

 right up to date. 



"Fool-cells" Kh : Hutchey? Well, 

 well, what next. You must be a curios- 

 ity fool queen bree<ler. There now. 



Doolittle shoots off his mouth pretty 

 goo<i about boiling foul broody honey. 

 He has a pretty good head on him in 

 many different ways. 



Now a little about bass wood. I know 

 of a .section of country which has many 

 good things, such as buckwheat, 

 lover, etc., and a whole lot of bass- 

 wood that will, in all probability, not be 



cut down in our time ( unless we live so 

 long we will be in some one's way); now, 

 why wouldn't that be an ideal location 

 for me, for instance — right in the heart of 

 the best vState Uncle Samuel owns ? What 

 do you say ? 



KixcsTox, X. Y., July 17, 1S99. 



HOXEV DEW. 



Some .\rmiiiients in Support of its Inseci 

 ()ri«in. 



.\DRI.A.X GKT.\Z. 



UROM time to 

 -'- " time articles on 

 the origin of hon- 

 e}- dew appear in 

 the bee-papers of 

 this country, and, 

 perhaps, also, in 

 other countries ; 

 yet, notwithstand- 

 ing all this discus- 

 sion, the question 

 is still undecided. 

 I'or the last two hundred years, or 

 more, there have been hundreds, or, rath- 

 er, thousands, of men and women who 

 have spent years and years, many of them 

 their whole lives, in the study of plants 

 and animals. They have done it as care- 

 fully and thoroughly as it could be done. 

 Now, if honey dew is really a secretion of 

 the leaves, it seems to me that under such 

 circumstances, the fact would have been 

 ascertained beyond any possible doubt 

 long before now. Instead of that we find 

 only a dozen or so t)ee-keepers who have 

 merely seen the honey dew, and failed to 

 see the insects that produced it, assert- 

 ing boldlv that honey dew is a secretion. 

 They have never made a full investiga- 

 tion; and all that they can say is that they 

 saw the honey dew but didn't .see the in- 

 sects. To my knowledge, not a .single one 

 has even tried to wipe off the honey dew. 



