112 
THE AUSTRALIAN BEEKEEPERS’ JOURNAL. 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
“Apis’" Reply to Mr Abram. 
(To the Editors of the Australian Beeheepers' 
Journal.) 
Gentlemen, — I am afraid the controversy 
between Mr. Abram and myself, respecting 
the relative merits of the Berlcpsch and 
Langstroth hives, is taking up rather much of 
your valuable space, but as it is a matter of 
the first importance to beginners that they 
should adopt, at the outset, the best hive, the 
discussion may not be without a value to 
them. 
After carefully reading Mr. Abram’s letter 
in the August number of this journal, I con- 
clude, first, that he must have thought I was 
reflecting on his ability as an apiarist in my 
reply to his article on the Langstroth and 
Berlepsch hives; second, that he has not 
answered the main points in my argument ; 
and third, that he has made a series of mis- 
takes through his letter, and bases his argu- 
ment on them. 
Let me first assure Mr. Abram that I had 
no idea of questioning his ability. On the 
contrary, I look upon him as an able bee- 
master, but at the same time I do not suppose 
he is, any more than the rest of humanity, 
above falling into error, or being prejudiced in 
favour of the particular appliance he has been 
accustomed to use, and therefore blind to its 
faults. Mr. A., at the commencement of his 
letter, says : — “ ‘ Apis ’ undertakes the task of 
comparing the Langstroth and Berlepsch 
hives.” 1 only followed Mr. A. in this “ task ” 
in order that beginners should see both sides 
of the question discussed, for it is only this class 
that might be led into the adoption of any 
articular hive by a one-sided argument. I 
ave no fear that the experienced beekeeper 
may be induced by any kind of argument to 
supersede the Langstroth with the Berlepsch. 
Had Mr. Abram confined himself simply to a 
description of the Berlepsch hive, and his 
method of working it, without trying to en- 
hance its value at the expense of the Lang- 
stroth, there would have been no need for my 
reply, which apparently he did not expect. 
Mr. A., in his first paragraph, assumes that 1 
have “ not the slightest idea of the Berlepsch 
hive; that I have not worked it side by side 
with the Langstroth, and therefore can have 
no practical knowledge of the matter,” and 
then proceeds to argue on this assumption. 
Does Mr. A. mean to tell us that it is impos- 
sible for any experienced beekeeper to form a 
fair estimate of the advantages or otherwise 
of any particular form of hive as compared 
with another, without first testing them side 
by side ? We should get on very slowly if our 
common sense did not guide us thus far. I 
must, however, correct, error number one, fori 
have used hives exactly similar to the Ber- 
lepsch, with the exception that the frames of 
the brood chamber ran from back to front 
instead of from side to side. There was the 
one tall box, divided off by a partition, with 
slides in it. The movable back from where 
the manipulating was done, the glass back 
inside the wooden one, and everything, ex- 
cepting the position of the frames, the same as 
the Berlepsch. I suppose Mr. A. will consider 
this near enough for all practical purposes. 
This hive, I daresay, is not entirely unknown 
to other Australasian beekeepers. It is called 
the “ Harbison hive” after a prominent Ameri- 
can beekeeper who was using it some years 
since. The first I had was made from one 
imported from America by Mr. Mr. G. S. 
Graham — now ofWellington — in 1876, which, 
after a trial of two seasons, I discarded in 
favour of the Langstroth. In September, 
1 882, I bought, for the sake of the bees in 
them, a dozen such hives from Major Jackson, 
of Waikato. I did not transfer the bees from 
all of them at once, but worked four of the 
hives through that season, with the result that 
I became more than ever disgusted with them. 
I still have a number of those hives, "out not in 
use. 
Perhaps Mr. A. will now admit his error, 
and allow that I had some practical knowledge 
of what I was talking about. But how about 
the other side of the question ? Has Mr. A. 
ever worked the Langstroth ? He does not 
tell us that he has. 
In the second paragraph Mr. A. proceeds 
to sustain his former argument about bees 
in a state of nature selecting particular 
shaped hollows in trees, but he does not 
say one word against my statement that 
there can be no other shaped hollows for 
them to select from, so that as regards this 
I have nothing to reply to. Further on, he 
takes exception to what I said in reply to 
his theory “ that the nearer we approach to 
their (the bees’) natural habits the more 
likely are our arrangements to be successful,” 
and says, in answer to what I pointed out as 
working against the natural instincts of the 
bees, such as making swarms, suppressing or 
checking the swarming impulse, forced queen 
rearing, controlling the breeding of drones 
or workers, that in doing these things we are 
not working against but assisting Nature. 
This appears to me a very curious line of 
argument. Nature requires no assistance ; 
site works her own ends in her own way, 
which does not always suit us, therefore we 
take our own course and assist ourselves, 
