212 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



it unimpaired strength. That is, there 

 was no swarming because no queen 

 showed signs of weakness. Conversely, 

 all swarming not the effect of conditions 

 external to the hive, is to be traced to the 

 temporary weakness of the queen. 

 Weakness, or inability to do full work, 

 may result from the great laying of the 

 earlier season followed by swarming; or 

 be an effect of age followed by super- 

 sedure. 



To further develop the argument, eggs in 

 queen cups, whether followed by swarming 

 or supersedure, are always an effect of 

 the one cause — royal weakness. 



If the queen recovers her strength after 

 a partial cessation from labor (and we 

 know that she lays less freely, at least 

 after cells are started) W3 may suppose 

 that the bees swarm rather than sacri- 

 fice her or destroy their ctlls. If she does 

 not recover she is superseded. A recov- 

 ered queen is jealous and restless, and to 

 save both quean and cells, swarming is 

 the altarnative. An old queen is indiffer- 

 ent; makes no trouble, an^i is superseded. 

 Or, to state it anothsr way, knowing that 

 exhaustion of vitality by age leads to cell- 

 culture and supersedure, 1 assume that a 

 like effect from overwork leads to cell 

 culture and swarming. 



By reversing this theory, the cases in 

 hand may be understood. For, Mr. Al- 

 exander's queens could not have been 

 overworked owing to their number. Dr. 



Miller's queens, in Foundation Treatment, 

 had a week's rest. A virgin introduced 

 at the opening of the season is not likely 

 to get tired. A queen in a nucleus can't 

 get tired. Those queens confined from 

 early spring to very small brood chambers 

 had no chance to tax their strength. 



Objections to the theory here advanced 

 will, of course, occur to everyone. Of 

 these, the most formidable is the infre- 

 quency of swarming from very large 

 hives. Perhaps it may be met in this 

 way: everyone at different times has no- 

 ticed eggs in queen cups that after a few 

 days were missing. They were put there 

 in accord with the theory. But when the 

 queen grew restless and jealous the bees 

 removed them rather than leave a hive 

 well stored and in every way comfortable 

 and commodious. Their attachment to 

 hive and queen was greater than to their 

 cells. This explanation is not quite satis- 

 factory. I would like a better. 



In truth, 1 am not fully content with the 

 theory, and offer it, not as a real, but 

 rather as a possible solution of the 

 swarming problem. We are justly dis- 

 trustful of teaching that is heretodo. and 

 that thistiieory is all the word means ap- 

 pears first in that it diminishes the hive 

 to prevent swarming. Secondly, in that 

 it makes the awakening of the swarming 

 instinct ?n effect, not the cause of queen 

 rearing. 



Otterville, Mo., Apnl 16, 1907. 





i«^^^&> .^»»».».»»^»^-»^it»«*^^*««'" »'»^<«jr»«^**««^«*^«»" ii^»."»^^^«»*«#»i« 



Itornai 



",F^»,^,^»»»»««^«<"*«««j<««-«.i^« .^»»*^» •««.«'»«»*• •■»»*^»*««,<m««*«««i«imrf«».»»^»»*». •i*«»*".^*«<«i«'«iH«» 



M. L. Darby, of Springfield, Missouri, 

 has been appointed Inspector of Apiaries 

 for that State. 



^•^•■« Kit* kin 



Marcus Woodcock of this city has re- 

 cently imported three Italian queens from 



on the road they were large and lively 

 and in fine condition. 



^■^^■KirKli'li-* 



Bulletin No. 70, being a "Report of the 

 Meeting of Inspectors of Apiaries, San 

 Antonio, Texas, November 12, 1906," 



Milan Bros, of Italy. Although ten days has been received at this office. Those 



