THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



In 30ur "firstly" yoii have not made 

 y<Hir meaning quite clear. At least, it is 

 nut clear to me; and I know how to sym- 

 pathize with you; for, try as hard as I can, 

 I am not always able to so word my sen- 

 tenses that they cannot be misunderstood. 



should certainly be interested in hearing 

 your reasons for your belief. As I did 

 not advise having queens reared by weak 

 nuclei, I presume you mean that strong 

 nuclei rear better queens than full colo- 

 nies. I have always had my cells built 



1901. No. I, A. 

 March 25, R. Cell and Bees. 

 April 15, Sent to Hutchinson 



April 16, M. Cell 



27, Sent to Jones 



April 2S, R. Cell 



" 31, Cell destroyed 



April 31, M. Cell 

 May 13, Sent to Smith 



May 14, R. Cell 

 " 27, Sent to Williams 



May 28, B. Cell 

 June 15, Sent to Root 



June ]6, R. Cell 



" 29, Sent to Jones 



June 30, X. Cell 



July 16, Sent to Hutchinson 



July 17, B. Cell 

 Aug. I, vSent to Wells 



Aug. I, M. Cell caged 

 " 3, Accepted 

 " 13, Sent to 



Aug. 14, B. Cell 



" 2.5, Fertile queen 

 " 27, Sent to Hill 



Aug. 28, Doubled with B 



1901. No. I, B. 

 March 25, R. Cell 

 April 15, Sent to Hutchinson 



April 1 6, M. Cell 



" 27, Sent to Smith 



This represents two pages in what call 

 my Yard Book. When mailing queens, 

 I take this book into the yard, and make 

 a record of anything needed, as where 

 queens are sent to, quality, cells destroyed, 

 etc. When I can do so I enter the name 

 of the purchaser. Sometimes a purchas- 

 er will assert that a queen has proved to 

 be impurely mated, and if we know from 

 which nucleus she came, and at what date 

 she was shipped we can easily asertain if 

 the purchaser is telling the truth. 



In putting in cells, the book tells where 

 to go with them. It is also easy, from 

 the book, to quickly get a record of the 

 queens that are due to la}-, and where to 

 find them. 



You .say that "Strong nuclei rear strong- 

 er more vigorous and longer lived queens. ' ' 

 Do you mean that strong nuclei rear bet- 

 U-r queens than are reared by weak nuclei, 

 or thai ibey rear better ones than do full 

 colonies ? If the former, I see no season 

 for disagreeing with you; if the latter, I 



in full colonies, hence have never been 

 able to compare their work with thai of 

 strong nuclei, but I know that the work 

 of weak nuclei is inferior to that of full 

 colonies. I know this because I have 

 occasionally had an ordinary nuclei rear 

 a queen, through some oversight, and it 



