56 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 15, 1886. 
the stock attacked the attention of the bees is to some extent 
drawn off from the weak spot, but when they are left undis¬ 
turbed by the acid and still are unable to beat off their 
enemies the risk must be incurred, and by using the precau¬ 
tion of a tunnel entrance not only is an additional impedi¬ 
ment put in the way of the robbers, but the strong scent of 
the carbolic is less distressful to the bees in the protected 
stock, but is equally, if not more, powerfully deterrent to the 
robbers, from the fact that the stones offer an exceedingly 
strong point of vantage to which to apply the acid. Necessity 
is the ruling power, and when it is remembered that the mania 
having once seized a stock every colony in the apiary is 
certain to be attacked in turn, the urgent need at once to 
repress the outbreak even by the use of strong measures will 
at once be recognised. Robbing is caused generally by care¬ 
lessness, occasionally by misfortune. 
It is an obligation upon all bee-keepers to remember that 
an exposure of honey in the open air, unless in the very 
height of the season, is a practice pregnant with mischief 
to all stocks within a two-mile radiu3. Bees like men are 
frail creatures, and with difficulty resist temptation. Pity 
their weakness.— Felix. 
QUEEN INTRODUCTION. 
I have delayed answering the kindly remarks of “ A. H. B.” 
until I had an opportunity of trying whether his plan was as perfect 
as he tries to make out, and in a later number of the Journal 
“ A. L. B.” says he has nothing to add, except that in certain cases 
the queen may have to be caged for twenty-four hours. 
This rather reminds one of the definition of a crab as a red fish 
which walks backwards, which was quite correct except that it is not 
red, that it is not a fish, and that it does not walk backwards ! If 
there is any meaning in words, I take it that “A. H. B.” believes 
in direct introduction, and disbelieves in caging queens. His method 
is very simple, saves a lot of worry and bother ; but I should be 
sorry to follow it in its simplicity, unless with the modification of 
“A. L. B.” 
However, I had a capital opportunity of putting it to the test. 
I wanted to introduce an imported Ligurian queen, and having made 
an artificial swarm I put them in one of my bar hives, gave them a 
bar of brood, none of which was less than twelve days old, and after 
ixty hours I let the queen run in at the top of the hive, and twentys 
minutes afterwards found her balled on one of the bars. The bees 
were still kept without any uncapped brood, and on two successive 
days I let her out with the same result that she was immediately 
balled. Having to go to Liverpool as Judge at the bee show, I left 
her caged till my return, and on July 1st (just a week after her 
unaccepted introduction) I again set her free, with the same result, 
and had to re-cage her. 1 shall be glad to hear from “A. H. B.” 
why his plan failed. As far as I know 1 followed out his instructions 
to the letter ; the bees were fed with syrup to make them more well- 
disposed to the foreigner, but all was of no avail. As I remarked 
before in a previous article, I have generally had more difficulty in 
introducing foreign than English queens. I quite agree with 
“A. H. B.” that, being only a novice and understanding nothing 
whatever about the subject (though I have kept bees for twenty 
years and have read a good deal of English, American, German, and 
French bee literature) it is rather presumptuous on my part to trouble 
you with my ignorant ideas on the subject. 
“If “A. H. B.” had had the misfortune of being examined so 
often as I have been in various subjects, as well as that of being 
examiner, he would be aware of the fact that in all sciences which 
are not exact it is not uncommon for the examiner to be the 
examined. I was perfectly aware of his plan, but I did not believe 
it then, and I do not believe in it now as an infallible plan. During 
my short experience as a bee-keeper I have introduced some scores 
of queens, English and foreign, and have never used of late anything 
but the pipe-cover cage, and have found the bees will readily take a 
strange queen after forty-eight hours, and as far as I can remamber 
I have not lost a dozen queens out of some hundreds that I have 
introduced. The opinions of Mr. Abbott are directly contrary to 
those of “A. H. B.,” as he says “there should be plenty of young 
bees and hatching brood in the hive,” and from his successful intro¬ 
duction of an albino queen in a hive from which the other queen had 
only just been removed, there must evidently have been eggs. The 
Raynor cage is, I believe, the one always used by its namesake. Mr. 
Baldwin prefers the pipe-cover cage, put, if possible, over an un¬ 
hatched queen cell to delude the bees that she is the Simon Pure ; 
while Mr. Cowan prefers the pipe-cover cage and confinement for 
three days or more, while he advises the presence of young bees by 
putting brood from other hives into the one we wish to introduce a 
queen, *■ as the old bees frequently encase the queen and hug her to 
death unless she be released.” 
“ If “ A. H. B.” thinks their evidence is untrustworthy, let us see 
what our American cousins say. Roots advises using the Peet cage. 
Mr. S. M. Hayhursf, in “ Gleanings,” writes that, with a good 
smoking, bees in weak nuclei sometimes accept strange queens if care 
is taken. At other times the utmost care results in failure, and he 
has lost nearly the whole batch of queens. Cook uses a wire cage or 
Peet’s cage, though he sometimes succeeds with direct introduction; 
but if he has a very valuable queen he puts her into a hive with no 
bees, but with brood that is just ready to hatch, and keep3 them in a 
warm room. F. Beckley, writing in the American Bee Journal, 
narrates how he lost a fine hybrid queen by letting her run in at the 
entrance of. a hive which had no brood or eggs, while another queen 
was well received after a night's caging. 
So I think, after all, I will not retract my saying that bees are 
“kittle cattle.” Iam perfectly willing to admit that success will 
follow direct introduction, but I deny its being infallible, and I 
prefer caging ; nor do I perceive how imputing motives or making 
groundless accusations can advance the knowledge of bee-keeping.— 
Geo. Walker, Wimbledon (A Surreyshiue Bee- keeper). 
*All correspondence should be directed either to “The Editor” 
or to “ The Publisher.” Letters addressed to Dr. Hogg or 
members of the staff often remain unopened unavoidably. We 
request that no one will write privately to any of our correspon¬ 
dents, as doing so subjects them to unjustifiable trouble and 
expense. 
Correspondents should not mix up on the same sheet questions relat¬ 
ing to Gardening and those on Bee subjects, and should never 
send more than two or three questions at once. All articles in¬ 
tended for insertion should be written on one side of the paper 
only. We cannot reply to questions through the post, and we 
do not undertake to return rejected communications. 
TO CORRESPONDENTS.—We desire to assure those of our corre¬ 
spondents whose letters and communications are not promptly 
inserted that they are not the less appreciated on that account. 
Our pages are practically filled several days prior to publication, 
and letters arriving on Wednesday morning, except by special 
arrangement, are invariably too late for insertion. The delay in 
the publication of some of these is not of material importance, 
buc reports of meetings and shows held a week previously lose 
much or all of their value if not received in time to appear 
in the current issue. 
Book (W. J. C.). —We believe that Don’s “Dichlamydeous Plants” can 
only be obtained second hand now, and your best plan would be to write to 
some dealer in old books. The price varies according to the condition of 
tho books. We have seen the four volumes priced at 103 , but they are 
usually more. 
Grapes Scalded ( Ferndale ).—The Grapes before us are in precisely the 
same condition as some sent a week previously by “ Merchant,” and the 
reply given on page 33 is equally applicable in both cases. A common cause 
of the evil is having vineries closed too long in the morning, then throwing 
open the ventilators to a considerable extent at once. This cui3es such 
sudden and extreme evaporation from the berries that they shrink through 
the loS3 of moisture that is requisite to sustain them in firm condition. 
Red Spider on Vines ( J. C., Somerset). —Undoubtedly the 1 -avea sent 
are infested with red spider, but the Rose is not necessarily the cause of it. 
We have had a Marechal Niel Rose trained inside a vinery for years and no 
red spider on the Vines. Your house does not appear to be sufficiently 
ventilated, and the air has been kept too dry. If the Grapes have not 
commenced colouring, most of the insects might be washed off with forcible 
yet careful syringinga of clear water pointed between the bunches and 
directed forcibly to every leaf. This must not be an ordinary sprinkling 
that amateurs indulge in, but a thorough drenching, even at the risk of the 
operator drenching himself. It should be done in the evening, air being 
admitted very early the next morning. We have cleansed more than one 
house of Vines in that way, and have known others fail simply because the 
work was imperfectly performed. An alternative plan is to sponge the 
leaves, as another correspondent is advised to cleanse his Cucumbeis. Give 
more air and use more water, and you may prevent the enemy doing any 
material injury to the Vines. 
Plants in Vineries {Idem).— Roses cannot be satisfactorily grown under 
Vines in the summer, and are far better outdoors after flowering in pots till 
the winter. They can be placed in the house after the Vines are pruned 
