114 APPENDIX. 



periment " to show that by keeping bees in small hives, you force them to destroy two- 

 thirds of the eggs which queens lay." Next adverting to Dr. Sevan's remarks, already re- 

 ferred to, as to the quantity of eggs, (12,000,) deposited in his hives " at the principal laying, 

 in April and May," he observes, * l if the Doctor would be at the pains of putting a swarm, 

 or two swarms united, weighing 8 or 9 lbs. , with a queen that has finished her principal 

 laying, into a hive containing twenty-four superficial feet of comb, he would find at the 

 end of seven days above 30,000 eggs set." At page 124, (of the Honey Bee,) he says, 

 " whatever advantage the putting of two swarms into a hive may give to a family during the 

 first year of its establishment, it can present none beyond that period ; for the swarms that 

 have been introduced will have paid the debt of nature before its expiration, and are 

 thereby reduced to a level with those that were not doubled. Dr. Bevan is wrong 

 here, (continues Mr. Pettigrew,) for a swarm that weighs 8 lbs., (that is, of course 

 if put into a sufficiently roomy hive,) hatches double the quantity of one that weighs 4 

 lbs., and consequently double the quantity of bees will live throughout the winter, set 

 double the quantity of eggs in the spring, and so forth." He finishes by recommending a 

 size of hive u for first or top swarms of from twenty to twenty-four inches wide, and from 

 twelve to fifteen inches deep." Such large hives, however, seem to lie under much the 

 same objection as that I have adyanced against the use of thePodolian hive, namely, that 

 quality of honey if almost entirely sacrificed to quantity, which may do well enough 

 for the cottagers, but certainly will neither satisfy the amateur, nor, I think, the fastidious 

 purchaser. 



In the same volume of the " Gardeners' Chronicle" which contains Mr. Pettigrew's papers, 

 I find the following communication by an anonymous correspondent, who brings forward 

 the testimony of an actual eye toitness to the extent of the royal bee's fecundity. (< The 

 history of the bee, (says this individual,) has been written with so much truth by Huber, 

 that little is left for inquiry. I know of but one error, which is, I presume, by the transla- 

 tor. The extraordinary fecundity of a queen is stated to be 200 eggs a day. A queen, 

 which deposited no more eggs than that, would never produce a swarm, on account of the 

 daily loss of bees which go out to the fields. I have had queens which laid 1,000 eggs daily 

 for three months in succession. This summer, (1844,) in a glass hive containing one comb 

 four feet square, the queen deposited 800 eggs a day, or 1G,000 in twenty days, 2,000 of 

 whom were males." 



(F— Page 52.) 



I shall entertain the reader here with an extract from my note book, giving an account of 

 an accident which happened to me last summer, while making an artificial swarm, and its 

 remedy, which will show with what reason I give the caution in the text, as well as sug- 

 gest a method of extrication from a similar difficulty. 



" 22nd May . . Walked to to breakfast, which being ended, Mr. took 



'me to visit a farmer's wife in his parish who keeps bees. There we found two magnificent 

 stocks, each with a great mass of bees depending from its board, well supplied with drones^ 

 and only waiting the queen's pleasure to be off. How great a temptation to our bee-driving 

 propensities was here ! "What experimentalist could have resisted the impulse to force an 

 issue on the spot ! Good people all, learn a lesson from the following story, and do not 

 meddle with other people's beesT Expertis credite. Having explained to the good wo- 

 man of the house, our own success in the matter of artificial swarming, and impressed her 

 with some notion of the advantage which would result from the process, or at least with 

 some degree of faith in our assurances, we obtained permission to form an artificial swarm 



