March 2, 1871. ] 



JOUKNAL OP HOBTICULTUKE AND COTTAGE GAKDENEK. 



171 



which has been carried oat), seem to have become much drier 

 than they were formerly ; and in this district the excessive 

 drought of such seasons as 1868 and 1870 exercises a very pre- 

 jadicial influence upon the ensuing summer by destroying the 

 crop of Dutch clover, which is the principal source from which 

 the bees collect their honey harvest. In 1868 I obtained a large 

 quantity of first-rite honey, but the drought of the summer 

 almost entirely destroyed the clover for the following season, 

 so that although the weather in 1869 proved very propitious, 

 the bees were for a great part of the summer almost entirely 

 idle, and only collected sufficient honey to supply their daily 

 requirements. The result was that they refused to enter the 

 supers, and all the combs in the stock hives and nadirs were 

 completely filled with brood ; and although the bees had ample 

 accommodation they exhibited an almost uncontrollable ten- 

 dency to swarm. I?or several weeks I overhauled my storifled 

 hives every seven days, and was obliged to excise royal cells 

 time after time to prevent the issue of swarms. At last a 

 copious honeydew made its appearance upon the beech trees, 

 on which the bees were eagerly occupied from morning till 

 night. They at once entered the hitherto-neglected supers, and 

 speedily laid up a considerable store of honey of a very dark 

 inferior quality, bearing a strong resemblance in colour and 

 consistency to common treacle. 



la 1870 the bees at once took to their supers, within a few 

 hours of the time when they were put on, and I obtained a 

 tolerable harvest of beautiful clover honey ; but I fear the 

 drought which prematurely closed last season his destroyed 

 the clover roots for this summer, and so icupaired the prospects 

 of the coming season. In localities where the permanent turf 

 abounds in white clover, the prospect is much more favourable. 

 In 1869, when our clover, sown to auooeed barley, was entirely 

 ruined, in Cheshire and other favoured localities the bees were 

 able to amass large stores of excellent honey, whilst we were 

 entirely dependent upon honeydew. — J. E. B. 



REGICIDE BEES. 

 Yon printed an article at page 131, describing the death of a 

 queen in consequence of strange bees getting into a hive. It 

 ' a few." How can they cause the death? Do they turn 



said 



regicides, or does their presence make the others become so ? 

 — J. L. 



[The intrusion of strange bees into a hive will frequently 

 induce an attack upon the queen. It is, however, a debateable 

 point whether the assault is made by the strangers alone, or if 

 the regioidal spirit be also communicated to the native bees.] 



NEW BOOK. 



The Hoimj Bee. By Dr. Beva.n-. Third Edition. Edited by TV. A. 

 MuNN, &c. London : Van Voorst. 



Wb have now lying before ns a new volume, which professes to be a 

 third edition of Dr. Sevan's wort on the honey bee, " revised, enlarged, 

 and iUustrated by "William Angnstns Munn, F.EH.S., &c" Know- 

 ing that the book originally published by Dr. Bevan has long been 

 lield in high estimation by the public as a valuable text lioot and ex- 

 ponent of English bee-knowledge np to the time at which it was 

 written, though now far behind the wants of the age, we were prepared 

 to welcome an edition that would give by way of notes or addenda a 

 full account of the progress of apiarian science. But so far as infor- 

 mation respecting recent discoveries and acknowledged improvements 

 in apiculture is concerned, the book now submitted to us for review is 

 utterly worthless. Its so-called revision has resulted in rendering it a 

 medium for advertising and puffing the merits of a cranky and unsightly- 

 looking hive, which was patented by Major Munn in Francs a few years 

 ago. _ 



This hive was never either admired or approved of by us, and 

 though it may serve for some experimental purposes, a glance at 

 its cramped combs and ridiculously small frames will be enough 

 to convince anyone who knows anght of the habits and necessities of 

 bees, that it is quite unsuitable for the purpose of abundant honey- 

 gathering. Major Munn would like it to be believed that he was the 

 inventor of the frame system ; he even takes credit for it, and asserts 

 that whether frames be square, oval, or triangular, they are all 

 founded on the bar frame which he introduced in 1S34, and that the 

 square is that which all bee-hive makers have copied from IBii. This 

 is mere assertion, and without any adequate foundation. It is pre- 

 posterous to say that Munn's hive has been copied either in Europe or 

 America, or that its invention gave any impetus to scientific bee-keep- 

 ing. We are only informed now of his attempt to use square frames ; 

 "his triangular ones were merely devised to enable him to lift his combs 

 into observation-frames, and so far was he from considering them 

 truly moveable, that he at first fixed them to the hive by means of 

 hinges. Dzierzon was the first to develops the use of moveable-comb 



hives into a system, and that he did not copy Munn is evident from 

 the fact that he has consistently stuck to simple bars, and neither uses 

 nor recommends frames of any kind. All Major Munn's tall talk 

 about ''a hive within a hive," "natural habitat," &c., is nonsense. 

 Long before his day Huber employed a hive of moveable frames ; and 

 as similar frames, but improved in construction, were encased in wood 

 fifty years ago by the late Dr. Dunbar, of Applegartb, for the double 

 purpose of preserving internal beat and protection against cold — the 

 " hive of hives," or " hive within a hive," is a very old affair indeed. 



Frame hives are very convenient to the scientific apiarian, but it 

 may well be doubted how far they conduce to the natural well-doing of 

 bees. Langstroth in America and von Berlepsch in Germany invented 

 almost simultaneously the modern moveable-frame hive, and there is 

 not the slightest reason for supposing that either of them had seen or 

 heard of Major Munn's contrivance. 



1^ is to be regretted that in the new edition of Bevan's work the 

 result of a lawsuit, whereby an attempt to npset Langstroth's patent 

 on the ground of want of originality, should have been mis-stated. It 

 really ended in establishing the validity of Langstroth's claims, and 

 he afterwards obtained an extension of the term for which the patent 

 was granted. The Major in his advertisement says that he feels 

 " somewhat reluctant to challenge any criticisms on bis alterations 

 and additions," and well he may, for the only warrant we can find for 

 them is an *' idea " which, he states, was once mooted between Dr. 

 Bevan and himself, that the survivor should carry on the experiments 

 thev bad so often discussed by letter in regard to " my bar-frame hive." 



What, then, has this snrvivor done, or rather undone ? The first 

 thing that strikes us is a new arrangement of chapters. For no good 

 reason the old and most natural has been upset, and the frequent 

 references in the various chapters to other chapters bearing on the 

 same subject, which was one of the most valuable features in the 

 original work, have been coolly omitted, apparently for no other end 

 than to be spared the trouble of rewriting them. By the aid of this 

 new arrangement the Major has managed to introduce into different 

 places the greater part of a pamphlet published by him in 1S51, and 

 which, but for this circumstance, might soon have passed into oblivion 

 like its predecessor. We observe also that very unnecessary alterations 

 have been made iu the language of Dr. Bevan, and sometimes, as in 

 the case of the circular theory of cells (which we believe to be the 

 correct one), the Major reverses the Doctor's opinions without giving 

 his readers the slightest hint that he has done so. Major Munn has not 

 only suppressed matter containing valuable information, but he has, by 

 interpolations in no way distinguished from the original test, made Dr. 

 Bevan give expression to sentiments of which he would have been 

 ashamed. Save us all from such friends. The public now, with this 

 mixture of ijevan and Munn only in their hands, cannot tell what 

 belongs to one and what to the other. Discoveries that belong ex- 

 clusively to Munn will be attributed to Bevan, and this will be a great 

 pity, for to Munn belongs the credit of revealing things hitherto un- 

 known to the best apiarian authorities. For example, he tells us at 

 page 65, " The sole object of a colony leaving with the old queen is 

 that she may perish after her last laying." Page 69, " Queen bees 

 apparently cannot feed themselves." Page 7-1, " After the second 

 year's commencement swarmiuEr must take place, or the death of the 

 old [queen] will." Page 78, " Whenever this piping commences there 

 is always a queen bee imprisoned within the large drone-like cells in 

 the centre of the combs." Page 195, " I have evidence that the 

 queens are compelled to make their flights twice in each year of 

 their lives, which is but for two after all." Such nonsense, and so 

 contrary to what are facts, ought never to have been associated 

 with the name of Dr. Bevan. And when, we would ask, did bees 

 become unable to elongate brood cells ? or give up the p)ractice, in the 

 first instance, of closing them with was? Perhaps it was at the same 

 time that the " inclined fioors " of bar-frame hives were found to be a 

 " sufficient guard," and the collateral system met, in some measure, 

 the requirements of the queen by leaving one side for the daughter to 

 reign, whilst the mother " can continue her egg-laying, and augment 

 he numbers before she perishes in the natural course of things." We 

 cannot advert to all the Major's grand discoveries, but there is one 

 which must not be passed over — viz., " endosmosis." It appears that 

 larvse require food, and in our ignorance we imagined they devoured it 

 after the manner of other animals. It is not so ; incredible as it may 

 appear, the larva are nourished by absorption ; the process is called 

 " endosmosis." 



We are sorry to say that we have as little faith in the truth of this 

 great discovery as in the utility of the Major's invention. The man 

 who fails to correct mistakes is very liable to make them. Though 

 the text of Bevan has been mucb altered, ^\faiix cot vain (as Schirach 

 calls it)," still appears in the chapter on diseases of bees. "Why did not 

 the Major point out Dr. Bevan's mistake, and tell his readers that 

 "faux couvain " is the French translator's equivalent for " foul brood," 

 and what Schirach really wrote was the German " faulbrut." The de- 

 scription which the Major gives of the disease called foul brood, its 

 causes and mode of cure, is absurdly inaccurate. He would have done 

 well before wasting his ink to have taken instructions on the subj£ct 

 from T. W. Woodbury, Esq., of Mount Eadford, Exeter. 



We hope it is not this Gentleman referred to in the advertisement, 

 by the name of " W. E. Woodbnrry, Esq., of Exeter ;" as the correct 

 designation is knovm to every apiarian of any standing, whether at 

 home or abroad. We are sure that if the manuscript or proof-sheets 



