THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



211 



Now we have a box without sides. 1 8 '4 

 X 20 inches, and ten inches deep, fur- 

 nished with legs. 



We now go to ths tinsmith and have 

 him make a dripping' pan 19 x 20 inches 



in size, two inches deep, with an inch hole 

 in the center of the bottom, into which is 

 soldered an inch spout, projecting down- 

 ward, beneath which a pail is sat to catch 

 the drip. Remus. Mich.. Jan. 15. 1907- 



A Possible Answer to the Question 

 Why Bees Swarnn. 



E. W. DIEFENDORF. 



I' /! R. E. W. Alexander, in Gleanings 

 if'-i Page 474. says: "Then another re- 

 sult from our experiments, so far as we 

 have gone, is that we have never had a 

 colony with two or more laying queens 

 show any desire to swarm. This is some- 

 thing we can not understand, as we ex- 

 pected these strong Colonies to be the first 

 to swarm." 



In Forty Years Among the Bees, pages 

 186-7. Dr. Miller, after telling us how he 

 confines the queen a week in his "foun- 

 dation treatment," concludes in these 

 words: "It is possible that this interim 

 without laying may be an important part 

 of the treatment. 1 don't know." 



It is generally conceded that a queen 

 reared at the opening of the swarming 

 season is not likely to come off with a 

 swarm during that season. 



In quite a lengthy experience in queen 

 rearing for my own needs, and to supply 

 a small local demand, 1 have often fovnd 

 nuclei crowded to their full capacity for 

 brood and honey, yet 1 never knew one in 

 that condition to swarm. Possibly others 

 have. 



In the American Bes Journal, page 197. 

 are reported some experiments, carried 

 through three seasons, in which severe 

 contraction of the brood chamber in early 

 spring, and before the queen had come to 

 her full laying, seemed to prevent swarm- 

 ing. 



1 group these several statement^; for the 



sake of comparison, since tha outcome in 

 each case is the same. I assume that the 

 same cause operated in all to bring this 

 about. For this reason, among the sev- 

 eral things that may have been factors 

 in non-swarming in these cases, it is 

 necessary to find one that was plainly 

 common to all. It is easier to determine 

 what this was by first determining what 

 it was not. This would be impossible in 

 any one case taken alone. Evidently it 

 was not the form nor capacity of the hive. 

 It was not the strength nor weakness of 

 colony. It was not the race nor the strain. 

 It was not the season. It v/as not the 

 character of the honey flow, nor the 

 amount of brood and stores on hand. It 

 was not the absence of drones. It was 

 probably not the ventilation nor the shade. 

 Eliminating these "nots." there seems to 

 have been no other probable common fac- 

 tor, unless it can be found in some sup- 

 posable physical condition of queen or 

 worker, or both. Such a condition the 

 chyle theory finds in both queen and 

 worker, but it fails when applied to the 

 fifth case (that of severe contraction), as 

 appears from the fact that after about 

 the fifth week, the excess of nurses over 

 open brood was constant. An insuffici- 

 ency of chyle then v/as not common, and 

 could not have operated in all to prevent 

 swarming. 



Looking- for another that shall be plain- 

 ly comrnor. I find it in the queen, and call 



