174 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, Junk 21, 1859. 
being anxious to fill my bee-boxes, I did not hesitate to sacrifice 
the old hive. My driven swarm, therefore (a very large one), 
was allowed to establish itself in the box ; where hitherto it has 
done so well, that I am in daily apprehension of its swarming, 
although I have given the bees a small super, in which they have 
been working well during the last week. I see a quantity of 
drone-brood ceiled over, and young bees are issuing from the 
cells in numbers every day. Thus far, therefore, I see no cause 
to regret the transfer of my bees from their old hive. 
My second, third, and fifth swarms were obtained likewise, 
severally on the 9th, 17th, and 30th of May, by driving out 
rather more than half the population of three stocks, which had 
been reserved for me out of their last year’s stock by two farmers’ 
wives living some two or three miles distant. In each case the 
parent stocks were left standing on their old stools, while the 
driven swarms were carried off in their several boxes as soon as 
they had crept up into them. Of course I took care to ascertain 
that their queens were with them. As might by expected, the 
last of these swarms was by far the strongest, although I took 
care that plenty of bees should be left behind in the old stock, 
besides the young brood which remained to be hatched out. 
It will be understood that I reckoned upon each of these now- 
queenless stocks (and I could see no royal brood in any of them) 
hatching out young queens artificially. I also reckoned, not only 
upon finding these young queens fully developed at the expiration 
of three weeks, but upon being able at the same time to drive out 
the whole remaining population of the hives, as no eggs would 
have been laid in the interval, and the young brood left by the 
old queens would have been on tho wing. At present my ex¬ 
pectations have been realised only in the case of one of these 
stocks, from which I proceeded to take the second swarm, also by 
driving, on the 27th May. The young queen—a very lively one 
—was seen by me before she crept up into her future home ; and 
it was evident that she was a worker bee transformed into a 
queen, from the peculiarity of the royal cell out of which she 
had issued being dependent from the middle, instead of from 
the edge of the comb. There were two such royal cells in the 
parent hive. The population of this swarm (which, in point of 
date, numbers as m j fourth swarm), although not very great, was 
yet sufficient to promise well for the future. Its earliness will 
ensure its success. Of these five swarms (which are now doing 
well in my bee-house window) only the fifth, of May 30th, had 
any drones with them.—B. & W. 
UNITING SWAKMS. 
On May 26th I hived a swarm of bees into the centre box of 
one of Nutt’s hives. On June 7th another swarm was placed in 
one of the side boxes of the same hive. The dividing-tins are 
down. May I remove these sliding tins and unite the two, and 
if so, when? My hope is.that the united stock would fill, not 
only the two boxes now occupied, but also the third empty col¬ 
lateral box, and a glass on tho top ; but my fear is that a fearful 
battle and slaughter may result from the union. Could this evil 
be prevented by sprinkling the bees with honey, or how ? Tire 
combs would be too young and tender, I fear, to turn up the 
box and sprinkle the bees. Would perforated zinc sliders, sub¬ 
stituted for the sliding-tins previous to the union, be desirable, 
by bringing the bees to acquaintance gradually ? 
Having a very inactive hive (also Nutt’s) about three years old 
which I had removed more than one hundred miles during winter, 
I united a swarm to it, in the usual way, a few evenings since. 
The swarm ascended very well into the old hive ; but a sad fight 
ensued; and numbers of dead bees were found next morning 
under the united stock, which, however, is certainly now stronger 
and more active. I found the old hive heavy witli honey, and 
one of the side boxes also, which was partly full of honeycomb. 
Was the above a prudent experiment, or what could I have done 
better ? 
Wishing to send back a cast to the parent hive (as I have done 
before) I secured the queen in a wineglass in the usual way, and 
destroyed her ; but, contrary to the usual result, the bees returned 
to the empty straw hive, and not to the parent hive, to which, 
however, I joined them at night. Can you account for this 
unusual incident ? Had there been two queens in the cast we 
should probably have detected them.—J. Chivery. 
[There is always more or less difficulty in attempting to 
effect the union of two families of bees, hived separately, and 
established though but for a short time, as distinct colonies, in 
boxes placed together collaterally. It would have been better, 
perhaps, had you at once removed the queen from the second 
swarm, when the bees would, most probably, with no very serious 
quarrelling, have joined the first family. As it is, time has been 
allowed for the establishment of a distinct community with new 
ties, and much fighting is to be feared by an abrupt junction. 
Fumigation and sprinkling under the immediate circumstances 
are undesirable, if not impracticable ; but we have known a con¬ 
siderable mitigation of evil by the insertion of perforated zinc 
dividers for a few days previously to allowing the free commu¬ 
nication between the boxes to be made. Even this procedure, 
though it might prevent much immediate commotion, is not 
always successful whilst two queens are still in existence; for we 
have heard of a well-authenticated case where, after a supposed 
junction had been effected, the two families continued to work 
amicably, side by side, through one and the same entrance. As 
respects your second query, you ought to have secured the queen 
before you attempted to join a new swarm to an old stock; and 
a little smoke puffed amongst them might have been serviceable 
in preventing a battle. As it is, you have probably introduced 
more of life and energy into the community, though at some loss 
by fighting. We should always be willing to incur a certain 
degree of risk in the case of an old lazy stock, which is usually 
stimulated by a sudden accession of numbers. Your third 
query involves little difficulty in the way of solution. The cast 
which you unsuccessfully attempted to reunite to the parent 
stock, was deprived of one queen only; whereas, two or three 
sometimes accompany after-swarms, and the capture of all of 
them should have been an ascertained point.] 
OUE LETTEE EOX. 
Bermondsey Roller (G. Chapman). —I am not acquainted with that 
variety of Pigeon. I believe that the Rollers, in general, are only a variety 
of the common flying Tumblers, carefully bred to tumble a great deal. 
From what I can learn, they are usually red-mottled, and though not 
short-faced, still not nearly so long-headed as a common Dove-house 
Pigeon. They are not necessarily feather-footed, though some are ; and in 
tumbling they ought to throw a "clear somersault, one at a time, which 
they should repeat very frequently, but without falling or losing much 
ground with the flight. I believe the breed is much esteemed in Birming¬ 
ham ; and I should be much obliged by any fancier, well acquainted with 
the Rollers, if he would favour me with a full and accurate description 
of this very interesting sort of Tumbler Pigeon, with which, I am sorry to 
say, I am but slightly acquainted. I fancy I have heard of a variety of 
Dutch Tumblers, or Rollers, that rise a short way in the air and then roll 
over and over till they almost touch the ground. Perhaps some fancier 
can supply a fuller description.—B. P. Brent. 
Almond Tumbler deficient in Feathers (An Amateur). — Your 
Almond Tumbler “in semi-nudity, especially about the breast and neck,” 
appears to be suffering from what is called “rotten-feathered.” I am 
not aware of any cure ; but it appears to arise from two causes—the first 
seems to be constitutional; there is a weakness or defect in the feathers 
themselves, and they break off at the quill, and are not replaced till 
moulting time. Possibly some advantage might accrue to the feathers by 
feeding on such food as would render the new feathers harder, stronger, 
and more perfect. I think that beans and barley might prove beneficial; 
while wheat and liempseed would be injurious. The second arises from 
fatness, or a relaxed state of the skin, in which the feathers fall out almost 
as soon as fully grown and are very slowly replaced. Such birds should 
be kept low, and strengthened by exercise. Perhaps barley and brank, or 
buckwheat, would constitute a good change of food; but I fear little 
advantage would be derived unless they are combined with the hardening 
and strengthening effects of cleanliness, fresh air, and exercise.—B. P. 
Brent. 
Wet Roup in Pigeons.— A Subscriber will be obliged by a cure for this 
disease. 
[Mr. John Moore, who, I believe, was an apothecary, writing in his 
work entitled “Columbarium, or the Pigeon House,” 1735, says :—“The 
wet roup next falls under our consideration; and in this case, once in two 
or three days, give them three or four peppercorns at most, and put a 
handful of green rue in their water.” I have no personal experience of 
this disease, but I think, if the cause is removed, as draughts, or damp, 
that this disease, as well as coughs, asthmas, and similar complaints 
would yield to treatment with tartar emetic. Dissolve three grains of 
tartar emetic in one quart of spring water, and give the sick Pigeon one 
tea-spoonful morning and evening.— B. P. Brent.] 
LONDON MAEKETS.— June 20. 
POULTRY. 
The supply of poultry has been larger this week, and the trade has been 
dull. Prices were hardly maintained. 
Each— s. d. s. d. I Each—*. d. s. d. 
Large Fow'ls. 5 G to 6 6 | Turkeys. 0 0 to 0 0 
Smaller ditto . 4 0 „ 4 G ' Pigeons . 0 8 „ 0 9 
Chickens . 2 3 ,, 3 0 Guinea Fowls . 0 0 ,, 0 0 
Geese. 6 0 ,, 6 6 Rabbits . 1 4 ,, 1 5 
Ducklings. 3 0 „ 3 G Wild ditto . 0 8 „ 0 9 
