ITS ANTIQUITY. 239 
ing shows not only that he was well acquainted with previ- 
ous writers on the subject, but that he was also a successful 
practical Apiarist. Its precepts, with but few exceptions, 
are truly admirable, and prove that in his time bee-keep- 
ing, with the masses, must have been far in advance of what 
it was fifty years ago. 
We have spoken of the har-hive, (282) as at least 
two hundred years old. From ‘‘ A Journey into Greece, by 
George Wheeler, Esq.,’’? made in 1675-6, it appears that it 
was, at that time, in common use there, and, probably, 
even then an old invention; he described its uses in 
forming artificial swarms, and removing spare honey. As 
the new swarms were made by dividing the combs between 
two hives, and no mention is made of giving the queenless 
one a royal cell, those old observers were probably acquain- 
ted with the fact that they could rear one from the worker- 
brood. Huber says:—‘‘ Monticelli, a Neapolitan Professor, 
claims that the plan of artificial swarming was borrowed 
from Favignana, and that the practice is so ancient that 
even the Latin names are preserved by the inhabitants in 
their procedure.”’ 
470. Huber, after his splendid discoveries in the physi- 
ology of the bee, felt the need of some way of multiplying 
colonies, more reliable than that of natural swarming. He 
recommends forming artificial swarms, by dividing one of 
the hives, and adding six empty frames to each half. 
‘¢ Dividing-hives,’’ (278-279) of various kinds, have 
been used in this country. The principle seems to have all 
the elements of success; but it was ascertained, that, how- 
ever modified, such hives are all practically worthless for 
purposes of artificial increase. 
It is one of the laws of the hive, that bees which have no 
mature queen, seldom build any cells except such as are de- 
signed merely for storing honey, and are too large for the 
rearing of workers (228). 
