nil!; BEE-KEEFERS REVIEW. 



47 



use for six or seven years, the ideal has not 

 yet been reached. The expense attendant 

 upon their production has been very great 

 but a compensation has been received in 

 solving quite a number of intricate prob- 

 lems. I possess a colony which has occu- 

 pied such combs for a period of more than 

 six years. During that period no drones 

 have been reared from Italian queens. 

 However, the Carniolaus are more sagacious 

 — they will deposit eggs in cells containing 

 pollen. Such will produce drones by voli- 

 tion of the queen. As this pertains to the 

 theory of egg-laying, I will consider it sep- 

 arately in another paragraph. 



Aside from the restriction of drones, my 

 experience has demonstrated that artificial 

 comb is practically proof against the in- 

 roads of the bee moth. During all my ex- 

 perience I have never been able to tind a 

 single immature bee removed by reason of 

 moth worms. And although thoroughly 

 adapted to the production of extracted hon- 

 ey, and being constructed of a material 

 which is a non-conductor of heat, adapting it 

 to both summer and winter use, still, the 

 cost of manufacture is an impediment to its 

 introduction. There are one or two minor 

 points which might be included, but not un- 

 til a machine of great capacity is constructed 

 for its production, will the highest ideal be 

 realized. 



With Italian queens it is noteworthy that 

 not a single drone will be produced in work- 

 er comb, if the queens are vigorous. With 

 this control there is certainly a degree of 

 of satisfaction, not only in accomplishing 

 what we attempt, but in being able to 

 eliminate the inferior stock and perpetuate 

 that which is superior. It is indeed beautiful 

 to see a continuous stream of workers 

 uulcouded by a single drone as they pour into 

 the hive during a good honey flow. 



Although my chief object in the produc- 

 tion of artificial comb was toprevent swarm- 

 ing, I saw other possibilities ; and, although, 

 as a non-swarmer it was not a complete 

 success where located among swarming col- 

 onies, still, when isolated 1 have never known 

 colonies in artificial comb to cast a single 

 swarm. This was abundant evidence to my 

 mind that the swarming impulse is conta- 

 gious. The aggregation of numerous col- 

 onies under the control of man, places the 

 bee under unnatural circmstauces which 

 favor contagion of every kind. When iso- 

 lated, the absence of drones is sutticient to 



prevent swarming. Modern bee keeping, 

 with the use of comb foundation to exclude 

 drone comb, certainly restrains swarming 

 to some extent. 



In considering the theory of egg-laying, 

 the use of artificial comb has furnished 

 abundant evidence in support of the W^ag- 

 ner theory, also to sustain the position of 

 those who believe in volition on the part of 

 the queen. The Wagner theory being, that 

 worker eggs ( impregnated eggs ) are due to 

 compression of the abdomen of the queen 

 when laying in small or worker cells. The 

 position held by many being, that mechan- 

 ical compression is necessary. Mr. Quinby 

 was a believer in the Wagner theory. With 

 hives containing artificial worker comb ex- 

 clusively, of the regulation size and depth, 

 no drones will be produced. In the coarse 

 of my experiments I made combs with cells 

 % of an inch in depth, ]S cells to the 

 square inch, hexagonal in shape. Such cells 

 being larger than for workers, and smaller 

 than for drones, served to throw much light 

 upon this question. I found that with an 

 average queen, workers would be produced 

 from every cell. The additional depth of 

 cells compelled the (lueen to lengthen her 

 abdomen, naturally causing compression 

 during the work of laying. With an under- 

 size queen I found occasional cells would 

 contain drones. I will state in this connec- 

 tion, the under-size (lueen which I introdu- 

 ced on wooden comb produced workers ex- 

 clusively in cells of regulation size and 

 depth. This experiment was in accordance 

 with Mr. Quinby's experience. " (Juinby's 

 Bee -Keeping. " 'Jud Edition, 18t>."). page 44, 

 last paragraph. Using his words — " AVhen I 

 first saw the smallest queen that I ever 

 raised, whose body was even smaller than a 

 worker's, it occured to me at once that if 

 she ever laid it would be a test of this prin- 

 ciple, her body being small it could not be 

 compressed like others, and a large portion 

 of her progeny would prove to be drones in 

 worker cells. The result was just what was 

 expected — one half were drones. " 



That drone eggs can be laid in shallow 

 cells, as in the instance of occasional patch- 

 es being cut down by the workers in a hive 

 containing worker comb exclusively — also 

 in cells containing pollen as already men- 

 tioned — and that no drones can be produced 

 in worker cells of regulation depth — further- 

 more that worker eggs cannot be laid in 

 drone cells of regulation depth witlunit first 



