THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



337 



thpm up to the point whore they need 

 shaking. When there are no more 

 weak colonies, the combs of brood 

 are put into hives and piled up two 

 or three stories high, the brood al- 

 lowed to hatch, when the bees are 

 shaken off, the honey extracted, and 

 the combs rendered into wax. 



By this management Mr. Nichols 

 has been able to prevent natural 

 swarming, get excellent crops of hon- 

 ey, and keep his apiary practically 

 free from foul brood, even when it 

 was in his immediate neighborhood. 



Some of us have not yet fully real- 

 ized all that this method of manage- 

 ment may mean to bee-keeping. 



tfmjr«««ir«^«^« 



SHALL WE CAI,I, THEM "SHOOK" SWARMS.'' 



Mr. E. F. Atwater, of Idaho, in 

 writing to Gleanings, says: 



"The expression 'shook' swarm is so 

 expressive, so catchy, and so popular, 

 that it is here to stay, in spite of 

 gi-ammatical rules, and Dr. Miller, 

 too." 



If the fraternity has a grammatical 

 critic it is Dr. Miller. He keeps close 

 watch and tries to have us use correct 

 language. This course is commend- 

 able. I doubt if there is any one who 

 is sorry that he does this. 



Once a name or an expression comes 

 into use. It is well nigh impossible to 

 change it. For that reason we ought 

 to be careful how we begin using 

 either. About as soon as anybody 

 said "shook" swarm, the doctor took 

 up the cudgel. In that he did his duty, 

 but I fear that Mr. Atwater has de- 

 scribed the situation most perfectly. 

 A term that Is catchy and expressive 

 is bound to come into use. In spite of 

 all protests from grammarians. 



After all, "shook" swarms is not so 

 bad. We might say "shaken" swarms, 

 but it has an awkward sound, and no 

 one will use the expression. "Shook" 

 swarm is terse, expressive and catchy, 



and I doubt if we can do better than 

 to adopt it. 



I did think for awhile that we might 

 call them "brushed" swarms, but it 

 seems that, in the majority of cases, 

 they are not brushed, that they are 

 shook, and that there are good reasons 

 for the shaking. 



Mr. Boardman suggests that we 

 call them artificial swarms. This term 

 means too much; It is too general; it 

 is lacking in defiuiteness. Artificial 

 swarms are made in other ways than 

 by shaking off the bees. To be sure, a 

 "shook" swarm is artificial, but an 

 artificial swarm may not be a "shook" 

 swarm. 



Mr. Root suggests the use of the 

 word "forced" swarm. It seems to me 

 that this term is open to the same ob- 

 jections as artificial swarms. All 

 swarming that is not natural is forced 

 or artificial, and we wish for some 

 term that will designate a swarm that 

 has been formed by shaking off the 

 bees. "Shook" certainly expresses it, 

 and it is not so ungrammatical as it 

 might be. We simply take the word 

 "shook" and use it as an abjective; it 

 may not be in the proper tense, but, 

 to me, the short, expressive, euphon- 

 ious make-up more than off-sets the 

 slight lapse of grammar. 



If anyuody will suggest a better 

 term, I'll be glad to use it, but at pres- 

 ent I am going to say "shook" swarms. 



SHOOK SWARMING Wlhl, OPEN A NEW 

 ERA IN BEE KEEPING. 



I have been reading Gleanings for 

 October 15 and I am In a jubilant 

 mood. For years and years I have la- 

 bored trying to show bee-keepers how 

 much more profitable it Is to have 

 swarms build their combs in the brood 

 nest than It is to furnish them with 

 sheets of comb foundation; that there 

 are times when combs may be built 

 at an actual profit; and, later, I have 

 tried to arouse bee-keepers to the fact 



