June U, 1891. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
All 
but I must point out that we cannot be too cautious in accepting as 
facts the evidence of old authors. 
I think I had good reasons for saying that the bees killed the 
death’s-head moths, because they entered the hives and had the 
same doorway to escape as they entered by ; and, secondly, the 
wings of the moths were invariably mutilated as if caused by the 
bees. 
The propolising of-the doorway I believe to be done to exclude 
stranger or robber bees. In my experience this always followed an 
attack by robbers. Some are of the opinion that it is done to 
guard against prospective cold. Be that as it may, the propolis 
defence is always allowed to remain till genial weather arrives the 
spring following the autumn when the defence was made. 
Regarding the opinion that bees cannot sting the moth to 
death on account of the down and elastic membrane. I doubt that 
very much. A bee will penetrate the hair of a dog or the hair of a 
human being and deposit its sting in the skin beneath ; but that is 
not even necessary to inflict pain or cause death, because bees eject 
the venom from their stings frequently when irritated, and I have 
often witnessed one bee kill another by this method, and have 
frequently had the acid squirted into my eyes without the bees 
touching me. Bees appear to know full well the vulnerable parts 
of their enemies.—A Lanarkshire Bee-keeper. 
DEATH OF “A RENFREWSHIRE BEE-KEEPER.” 
A LARGE circle of friends and bee-keepers will learn with deep regret 
the death of J. M. McPhedran, Esq., of Craigbet, Eenfrewshire, took 
place on May 28th last. He was well known amongst the latter as 
“ A Renfrewshire Bee-keeper,” the only signature he ever attached to 
his bee articles. He had not been long ill, and his death came with 
terrible suddenness upon many who knew him, and who had so lately 
seen him looking the picture of health. Mr. McPhedran was born in 
Greenock sixty-four years ago ; he received a high education and good 
training, and although heir to an estate entered a shipping office while 
yet a young man. So exemplary in his manner and attentive to his 
duties that at the expiry of his apprenticeship there was a keen com¬ 
petition by different firms for his services, but at this stage he chose to 
enter into his estate, inherited through the death of his uncle, Dr. 
McCulloch, where he has remained ever since. A life-long abstainer, of 
the most simple habits, purest principles, and unostentatious piety, he 
scorned the hollow forms of polite society ; he refused all county 
honours and local dignities. His splendid physique and commanding 
person attracted attention everywhere, yet he was so modest as never 
even to have been photographed. 
It w'as as a bee-keeper, however, that readers of the .Journal oj 
Ilorticxdture will feel the greatest interest in him. He has been a 
reader from the first number of the Cottage Gardener to the latest 
number of the Journal of Horticulture, and it is worth mentioning 
that on several occasions when the merits of various journals were 
discussed, he took the .loibrnal of Horticulture in the one hand, and 
placing a finger of the other upon it, exclaimed, “ This is the Journal 1 ” 
It was through his excellent and practical articles upon the Stewarton 
hive that awakened so much interest in bee-keeping, and being in 
correspondence with the late Mr. T. W. Woodbury, revealed much infor¬ 
mation to the latter gentleman. As some of your readers are aware, he 
found under the pavilion of his mansion house a great colony of bees ; 
carefully examining the w’hole bee edifice, and had bees and combs 
transferred to a hive of his own constmetion, and of the proper width 
of inch from centre to centre of combs, as the bees naturally build 
them. In the Stewarton hive he found the nearest approach to the bees’ 
own system, and at once adopted it, and in time improved it. He had 
an observatory hive made, and studied minutely the habits of the 
insect, and very soon struck in with a powerful pen (through the 
Journal) into the controversy that went on as to wood or straw hives 
when Mr. Woodbury was bee editor. His contributions were so practical 
as to at once command respect, while being free from bitterness 
commended his opinions, even to those who were opposed to them. 
He invented some useful things, such as the queen’s introducing 
cage, and the bee drinking fountain is the prettiest and most efficient 
thing of the kind ever introduced. It, as well as other of his inventions, 
have found their way to America, and all are common property, even 
claimed by some here as well as in America, but which was received by 
him with a smile of amusement. 
For years he was a most successful breeder of Leicester sheep, carrying 
off the prizes from the keenest competitors. Fond of the best quality of 
all kinds of farm stock, he was ever proud to assist others to attain to 
his high level of excellence, and would never condescend to the little 
tricks of exhibition breeders. 
He never married, but lived with his two sisters a quiet life, extend¬ 
ing always an open Scottish hospitality of the old style to many friends 
who will long cherish his memory. 
His garden was one of the best kept, and contained the finest collec¬ 
tions of old fashioned flowers in the county. He was ever proud to 
share his flowers to all of his friends who desired them, while his orchard 
fruit and much of his home farm produce went to the poor. I will 
conclude with the following, which might well be emulated by employer 
and employe. When any young person was taken into his service he 
took them under his care as a father, teaching them all duties, supplied 
them with suitable books, two of which were the bible and a bank¬ 
book, with £1 as a beginning, and added to it periodically during the 
term of service, and not a few young men can attribute to this care and 
kindness their present successful career, and one old servant in bis- 
employ at his death has upwards of £1000 to his credit in the bank to 
support him in his declining years.— A Lanarkshire Bee-keeper. 
QUEEN EXCLUDER ZINC. 
I MUST enter my protest against the remarks of Mr. J. M. Hooker^ 
on page 4.o7, as being to a very great extent misleading, and contrary to- 
the previous teachings of this Journal. Mr. Abbott was not the first to 
use excluder zinc. I think the Germans were the first to employ it 
while Messrs. Neighbour and myself made and sold excluders of strong 
wire before the time indicated by Mr. Hooker. 
It is simply a piece of sophistry to say that previous to excluders the 
queen had access to the whole hive including supers. The Scotch bee¬ 
keepers were too shrewd to confine the queen to a less breeding space 
than was demanded, or so foolish as to open up the whole crown of the 
hive for the vitiated air to ascend and darken the combs, as our modern 
bee-keepers do, or to restrict the freedom of the loaded bees to ascend. 
Queen excluder zinc is superfluous and labour-giving to the bees. 
The late “ Renfrewshire Bee-keeper,” as well as myself, long showed 
the superiority of the Stewarton system in preserving the purity of the- 
comb, and our shows as well as the first Crystal Palace Show 
demonstrated the great superiority of the honey. Mr. Abbott attri¬ 
buted this to the use of comb foundation, then but little known, 
amongst our modern bee-keepers ; and commenting upon the honey at 
the Crystal Palace Show the Times said, “ It eclipsed everything.” 
Mr. Abbott shbwed me the comb of honey referred to by Mr, 
Hooker, said to be taken from the “ centre of the brood nest.” I possess 
some knowledge of bees as well as of bee-keepers, but do not at all 
times express my opinion, but will do that on this occasion. It is con¬ 
trary to the nature of bees to store honey in the centre of the brood 
nest, and consequently I am unable to accent any statement to the 
contrary. 
I am glad to see Mr. Hooker approves of the storifying hives, but it 
was not Mr. Woodbury who invented them. Mr. Hooker does not,, 
however, appear to urge this, but only alludes to Mr. Woodbury having: 
“advocated” them. It was the late “Renfrewshire Bee-keeper” who 
improved the system, and by his sensible letters in the Cottage Gardener 
made bee-keeping what it is now. 
Mr. Hooker’s article in some respects proves what I have often said^ 
that shows have been a failure so far as the cottager bee-keeper is con¬ 
cerned ; and at our earlier shows he as a judge ignored the very hives- 
he now praises, and what British and American bee-keepers now 
approve I proved to bo good years ago, and publicly recommended them, 
long before a single modern claimant knew anything about them. 
I observe the queen excluder zinc is largely advertised, and I regard 
Mr. Hooker’s article as nothing else than a huge advertisement.— 
A Lanarkshire Bee-keeper. 
On page 457 Mr. J. M. Hooker dilates on the advantages of the above- 
to keep queens out of supers. May I be allowed to advise him to learn 
the true art of supering, as taught in this Journal by “ A Renfrewshire- 
Bee-keeper ” and “ A Lanarkshire Bee-keeper,” when he will be able 
to keep queens out of supers without such an objectionable adjunct as 
excluder zinc.—A Hallamshire Bee-keeper. 
All correspondence should be directed either to “ Thb 
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 correspondents, as doing so subjects them to 
unjustifiable trouble and expense. 
Correspondents should not mix up on the same sheet questions 
relating to Gardening and those on Bee subjects, and should 
never send more than two or three questions at once. All 
articles intended 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 communica¬ 
tions. 
Mildew on Vines (//. 77.).—Your letter arrived too late to be- 
answered this week. The case shall have attention, and in the mean¬ 
time we refer you to replies to other cjrrespondents. 
