THE AUSTRALIAN BEEKEEPERS’ JOURNAL. 
69 
is superior to the latter. Having been inti- 
mately connected with the introduction of the 
Langstroth hive into Australasia, and ns I by 
no means agree with Mr. Abram’s conclusions, 
perhaps you will grant me space to reply to 
some of his remarks, and to compare the two 
hives in my own way. 
The Berlepsch and Langstroth hives appear 
to be as different to each other in construction 
and shape as it is possible for frame hives to 
be, the difference in construction necessitating 
different methods of manipulation. Briefly, 
the Berlepsch hive, as described by Mr. 
Abram, is a box 23J inches high, 9|- inches 
wide, and 16 inches from the entrance to the 
back. Along the sides — that is, from back to 
front — are small grooves for the projecting 
ends of the top bars of the frames to slide in. 
The brood frames, which are 9 j- inches long 
by 14 J inches deep (outside measure,) run in 
one set of grooves, while the surplus honey 
frames slide in another set immediately under 
the top board or cover. It must be under- 
stood that the hive cannot be enlarged above, 
because in the bee house used by Mr. 
Abram the top of the hive (allowing 2 inches 
for the bottom and top boards) comes within 
5 inches of the top, or the upper shelf of 
the bee house, as the case may be. The 
frames hang parallel with the entrance, and are 
manipulated from the back, which is remov- 
able for this purpose. The complete Lang- 
stroth hive, or what is usually understood aB 
such, is a box, or rather two boxes, each 10 
inches high, 14j- inches wide, and 18| inches 
deep, from back to front,, inside measure. The 
brood frames, which are 17f inches long by 
9^ inches deep (outside measure,) hang on 
metal supports, tacked on to each end of the 
hive, so that they run the reverse way to those 
in the beehive. This hive can be enlarged 
upward to any extent, and the frames are 
manipulated from the top after removing the 
cover. 
The Berlepsch frame, as will be seen by the 
measurements given, is a short deep frame; 
while the Langstroth is a long shallow one. 
Mr. Abram lays great stress on the difference 
in the frames, and in advocating the use of the 
B. frame, he contends “ that the high, narrow 
frame is more in accordance with their (the 
bees) nature than the 1 iw, wide one ; ’’ and 
further says: — “Any one who has found bees 
in their wild state in trees, &c. &c., will at 
once admit that they always select a place 
for their house which is much higher than 
wide, and there is no doubt that the nearer 
we approach to their natural habits, the more 
likely are our arrangements to bo successful.” 
I cannot help thinking that this part of Mr. 
Abram’s argument has been unhappily 
chosen ; for in the first place I believe it is 
hardly possible to find a hollow in any partly 
decayed tree that is not higher than it is wide ; 
if it were not so, we should scarcely find a 
hollow tree standing. I hold that being found 
in such places no more proves that the bees 
have selected them on account of their shape 
than a swarm taking possession of the space 
under the roof of a cottage proves that the 
place was selected on account of its width, or 
because there are shingles and rafters over 
head. I have known swarms to take posses- 
sion of all sorts of curious places apparently 
without the least regard to shape or size ; for 
instance, a hen-coop, a cask lying on its side, 
boxes lying on the ground, under fallen trees, 
&c., thus showing that they are not always 
particular about the shape or style of their 
habitation as long as it affords them shelter, 
and sometimes they are not very particular 
about that even. As for following out Mr. 
Abram’s idea and approaching nature as near 
as we can in the management of our bees, I 
think the nearer we got the more unprofitable 
we should find them. Are we not working 
against their natural instincts when we check 
the swarming impulse ? How else could such 
large crops of honey be obtained? Do we 
not, control the breeding of drones, workers, 
and force the bees to raise queens when we 
wish, all of which may be, and generally is, 
against their natural desire at the time ? and 
do we not make swarms or small colonies, very 
often out of season ? In fact, in nearly all 
our operations under scientific management we 
work against the natural instinct of the bee, 
and only approach them when we are com- 
pelled to. Notwithstanding what Mr. Abram 
has said, I am sure he does not wish us to go 
back to the old log-hive, because it approaches 
nature nearer than the modern one. No, 
Apiculture would never have advanced to the 
stage it has had this idea been entertained all 
along. 
Formerly, tall, narrow frames were largely 
used, possibly with the same idea that Mr. 
Abram has advanced; but with increasing 
knowledge, however, the tendency during the 
past ten or twelve years has been toward long 
and shallow ones. There are several very 
good reasons why a shallow frame is prefer- 
able to a deep one. First, shallow frames 
require shallow hives, which are much handier 
for those working them, and less liable to be 
disturbed by high winds. Second, they can 
be more easily manipulated than deep frames, 
and with less risk of injuring the bees, queen 
or queen cells ; and third, a shallow hive with 
the same cubic measurement inside, will give 
more top surface than a deep one. This I 
look upon as a very important point, as it 
gives a larger extent of communication with 
the upper boxes. I find by measurement that 
