THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
OCTOBER 16. 
before broocl was again batched in the hive, to replace the 
daily loss in the fields. I also considered, that under these 
circumstances, the great reduction of population in the old 
stock, so far from being a disadvantage, would actually prove 
of great use, because there would thus hardly be a sufficient 
quantity of bees hatched at the time of the issue of the 
young queen to prevent her from destroying her rivals, and 
thus there would be no after swarms or casts. Such was my 
reasoning; the result of my experiment* will show how far 
it was correct. 
I had a natural swarm on the 15th of May last, which 
| issued from a common cottage-hive of moderate dimensions. 
I Oxring to the awkward situation in which it settled, we were 
! obliged to blow the smoke of burning wood upon the swarm, 
for the purpose of driving them elsewhere. Many of the 
bees returned home in consequence, but at last the swarm 
rose, and re-alighted on a branch of an apple-tree, very con¬ 
veniently for hiving. It was then put, in my absence, into a 
large hive, 12 lbs. in weight, of unusual size, the dimensions 
being severally 151 inches in diameter, and 12 inches high, 
inside measure. When I came to inspect my swarm the 
following day, it appeared so insignificant in its roomy 
abode, that I looked upon myself as extremely unfortunate, 
for I had depended on this swarm for the main experiment 
of my new plan. I immediately had it placed, however, on 
the old stand, removing the parent stock to a new position. 
From this time I carefully watched the course of events. 
My swarm, in spite of the very unfavourable weather, which 
we had in the beginning of June, contrived to live on, and 
thrive. But by the 15tli of that month, the hive was not 
more than a third full of comb, but it was evident that the 
population was much increased, and was already, in fact, 
very large. With the 15th, came a favourable change in the 
weather, and my bees worked wonders. This was evident, 
when on the 25th of July I weighed the hive, and found it 
to contain 411bs. of honey, bees, &c., i. e., independent of the 
hive itself! The comb was also worked quite down to the 
floor-board. 
But what of the old, or parent stock ? It appeared literally 
tenantlcss for several days, with the exception of a stray bee 
or two, which occasionally appeared at the entrance; but it 
gradually recovered itself, became very populous, hatched 
out a great quantity of drones, threw no second swarm, and 
weighed on the 25th July, 28Jibs., nett contents, part of 
which was worked in a nadir ! In this instance, then, I had 
seen the correction of my reasoning fully borne out by the 
event. 
Strictly speaking, however, this is the only direct proof in 
favour of my new system, which I have to bring forward ; 
but I will mention here my treatment of two other hives ; 
which tell almost equally in favour of it. A swarm was 
forced to issue (artificially) from each on the 22nd of 
May last, and each swarm was made to take the place of 
the old hive, which was removed to a new stand close by. 
Unfortunately, the old hives were left open, so that they 
became quite deserted. However, the one swarm (call it a) 
gave me fdbs. of honey in a large bee-glass, filled its own box 
with a famous store (its weight I have not yet ascertained, 
though I can see the honey-comb), and worked four pieces 
of comb in a side-box, of which the middle comb was ceiled 
over six inches down, and the others in proportion. The 
bees I suffered to carry this into their hive, as the comb will 
be of more value to me another year, than the honey will 
now. This swarm was of an enormous size, so much so, 
that it worked simultaneously in its own box, and in a 141b- 
glass, but one unlucky day in June it blew a perfect hurri¬ 
cane, which destroyed nearly half the swarm—the bees being 
tempted out by the warmth of the air. The parent stock of 
this swarm, deserted as it had been, contrived to give me 
3J lbs. of honey in a small glass, besides working several 
combs in a side-box. Its own weight, on the 15th of Sep¬ 
tember, was l!).jr lbs., nett contents—amply sufficient for the 
mildest winter. 
The other swarm (b), artificially made, was put into a 
large hive, half full of empty comb. Five days afterwards 
I drove the bees, caught the queen, and returned her to the 
parent hive, where she was well received. Thus the swarm 
* The reader must be informed, and he will bear the information in 
mind, that the honey season here, as elsewhere, has been very indifferent 
on the whole. 
(very populous) had to rear a queen, artificially (instead of 
the old stock), from the eggs or larvae laid by the queen 
before her removal. I did this, because the old hive (which 
was the one I suspended in a hay-loft last winter) appeared 
in a most miserable condition; the bees that remained (I 
had suffered them all to join the swarm) were too few in 
number to attend to the wants of the young brood left by 
the queen. Many of the larvae had, in consequence, become 
quite dead and black in the comb, and the wax moth had 
commenced its ravages. 
What then of this experiment ? The swarm (as full of 
bees as possible) weighed 33 lbs., nett, on the 10th of 
September ; the old stock (which had been quite empty of 
honey in the spring) 32J lbs., nett, at the same date. It 
may fairly be inferred, I think, from ail this, that the sub¬ 
stitution of the new swarm for the old swarm is a fact well 
worthy the attention of all practical bee-keepers; and I 
should be glad to persuade your apiarian readers to give my 
system (which I believe to be a valuable step gained in bee- 
management) a fair trial. The theory is simple, and the 
practice easy.—A Country Curate. 
TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
*** We request that no one will write to the departmental Writers of 
The Cottage Gardener. It gives them unjustifiable trouble and 
expense. All communications should be addressed “ To the Editor of 
The Cottage Gardener, 2, Amen Corner, Paternoster Row, London. 
Ageratum and Ccelestina.—A friend writes to us as follow’s :— 
There are two plants which, I think, are often confounded by many of 
your readers—namely Ageratum and Ccelestina. I thought myself they 
were the same plant nine or ten years ago, when visiting the gardens 
belonging to Sir W. Heathcote, at Hursley Park, Hants, where I first 
saw a beautiful bed of the Ccelestina ageratoides. I was more than 
usually pleased with the plant, and remarued to the young gardener who 
was showing us round the gardens, “What a fine bed of Ageratum 
Mexicanum you have there,” when, to my great surprise, he replied, 
“ It is a Ccelestina.” I observed it was much larger growing, both in 
plant and flower, and brighter coloured, yet I could not believe it to be 
anything more than a variety of the Ageratum Mexicanum, of which at 
the time I had a bed at home; however, I begged a head of seed, but 
the young man informed me that it rooted readily enough from cuttings, 
and true enough it does ; but this is not the case with the Ageratum 
Mexicanum, which is a tender annual, and though it thrives so well 
during the summer months, in our flower-gardens, it would be found a 
troublesome customer to deal with by cuttings, and to keep it alive the 
winter through. On the other hand, the Ccelestina ageratoides is an under- 
shrubby greenhouse perennial, and one of the very best of our bedding-out 
plants, and those who would put by about two plants at bedding-out 
time, to remain in pot during the summer, but giving it a larger pot to 
go on through the summer in ; pinching off the tops of the plant now¬ 
and-then, and tow’ards the beginning of September giving the two plants 
another shift into a larger pot, will have it growing and flowering during 
most of the winter and spring months, and yielding plenty of cuttings to 
strike from, so soon as the bottom-heat hotbeds are at work again. It is 
such a readily-rooting plant, that every cutting must strike, put into the 
hotbed. Now this we cannot say of the Ageratum Mexicanum. It 
would be found a delicate plant to deal with, under any circumstances, to 
keep it through the winter, but it seeds very freely, and stands the test 
very well when planted out in a bed in the flower-garden, which is not 
the case with very many of the annual plants. Ageratum Mexicanum is 
an exception to this, standing the test very well as a bed plant. How¬ 
ever, where one only is wanted of its colour and shape of flower, give the 
Ccelestina ageratoides the preference j but where sorts are in request, 
then give place to all that is pretty and sweet in the Ageratum Mexi¬ 
canum. The whole plant of this is bristly, and the leaves egg-heart¬ 
shaped, scolloped, and wrinkly; whilst of Ccelestina ageratoides, the 
whole plant is, more or less, hairy, the leaves pointed-egg-shaped, 
rounded at the base, and coarsely saw-edged. 
Boyd’s Self-adjusting Scythe (Hortulunus). —This is to be bought 
of Messrs. Deane, Old Swan Lane, London. Mr. Boyd, in a letter now 
before us, says—“ The invention is my own, and was conceived in conse¬ 
quence of the vast annoyance, inconvenience, and expense, in getting one 
of the old scythes lrung, and I was at last almost driven to wish that Old 
Time had been hung for inventing such a very clumsy thing. I am 
happy to say, that after much labour and expense, I have succeeded in 
bringing the improvement to perfection; and that, during its exhibition 
at the World’s Fair, I have been honoured by explaining it in person to 
Her Majesty and Prince Albert, when it met their most gracious approval. 
I have received orders for them from M. Salandrouze de Lamornaix, on 
behalf of the French government; as also from the Royal Agricultural 
College ; as well as from farmers, gardeners, labourers, nurserymen, and 
amateurs, the latter of whom have discovered the important fact, that 
they can now mow their own lawns without fear of accident, and at such 
a saving in the gardeners’ wages as to enable them to spend their savings 
in other ways connected with the noble pursuit of gardening.” 
Preserving Strawberries from Slugs. — E. L. M. writes as fol¬ 
lows :—“In reply to an inquiry in a recent number of The Cottage 
Gardener by ‘ Upwards and Onwards,’ as to the best means to be 
adopted for the preservation of Strawberries from the Slug, See., I would 
strongly recommend the use of bark from the tan-yard, after it is taken 
out of the pit. It was used for many years by a gentleman who spared 
no pains in order to preserve his fruit and bring it 4 handsomely to table.’ 
I remember that the bark, or tan, was laid on the beds early in the spring, 
