BEE-spoke-data/bees-v0 huggingface dataset:
Microneria chamissons, 58, 287.
Mignonette, 59, 158.
Milkweed, 8, 59, 70, 135, 151, 159, 160,
161, 262.
Milkweed, climbing, 43.
Miller, A. C., 23.
Miller, Dr. C. C., 65, 84, 277.
Minnosota, Honey Sources of, 160.
Mint, 32, 160.
Mississippi, Honey Sources of, 161.
Missouri, Honey Sources of, 162.
Mistletoe, 58, 162.
Mohr, Chas., 36.
Monarda, I29.
Monardella, Iancolata, 59.
Monotorpa, 206.
Montana, Honey Sources of, 162
Montana plant, 162, 163.
Morning glory, 58, 162.
Motherwort, 164, 165.
Mountain lilac, 165.
Musa sapientun, 28, 116.
Mustard, 56, 58, 135, 151, 166.
* [19] Rosa, 224. California, 59,
* [20] Iaevigata, 66.
* [21] Rose, 59, 223.
* [22] Rosin weed, 73.
* [23] Royal palm, 183.
* [24] Roystone, 183.
* [25] Rubacer, 233.
* [26] Rubus, 15, 37, 48, 150, 151, 205.
* [27] Rudbeckia, 75.
* [28] Russian olive, 180.
* [29] Sabal, 183.
* [30] Sage, 57, 59, 225.
* [31] Sainfoin, 117, 231.
* [32] Sala1, 182, 232.
* [33] Salix, 15, 48, 56, 151, 282.
* [34] discolor, 48.
* [35] longifolia, 48.
* [36] spiesion, 15.
* [37] Salmon hery, 15, 233.
* [38] Salt cedar, 233.
* [39] Salvia, 57, 59, 225.
* [40] Sambucus, 15, 60, 89.
* [41] Sandvine, 43.
* [42] Sanguinaria canadensis, 40.
* [43] Sapindus, 206, 279.
* [44] Saskatchewan, Honey Sources of, 234.
* [45] Sassafras, 234.
* [46] Satureia montana, 59.
* [47] Satureja, 281.
* [48] Scaliosa, 206.
* [49] Scaliosa, 206.
* [50] Scaliosa, 179.
* [51] Schinus molle, 56, 192.
* [52] Scholt, L. H., 12, 13, 31, 39, 49, 53, 63, 73, 81, 97, 104, 109, 126, 154, 162, 163, 193.
* [53] Scilla, 234, 235.
* [54] Screw bean, 21.
* [55] Scrophularia, 58, 94.
* [56] Sculten, H. A.,63, 162, 216, 233, 236, 273.
* [57] Scchinn edulc, 66.
* [58] Sedun, 244.
* [59] Senceio, 55.
* [60] Senna, 148.
* [61] Serenoa, 183.
* [62] Serjania lethalis, 204.
* [63] Shecpard, 141.
* [64] Sheppard, W. J., 49, 131, 181.
* [65] Sherman, Franklin, Jr., 177, 192.
* [66] Shittum wood, 113.
* [67] Sidulcea malveiflora, 56, 280.
* [68] Sidrocarpos, 237.
* [69] Siebert, J. J., 66.
* [70] Silphium, 54.
* [71] Simpson's honey plant, 58.
* [72] Sisal, 117.
* [73] Skunk cabbage, 134, 155, 235.
* [74] Sladen, F. W. L., 15, 27, 33, 104, 106.
142, 152, 181.
Smartweed, 15, 135.
Smilax, 113.
Snakeroot, 45, 46.
Showberry, 48, 131, 133, 236, 272.
Snow-on-the-mountain, 236.
Snowvine 236.
Soaplush, 237.
Soidago, 49, 57, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107, 108, 150.
Sonchus, 60, 238.
Sophora, 116.
secundiflora, 76.
Sorghum, 237.
Sour clover, 58.
Sourwood, 100, 139, 177, 237.
Sow thistle, 60, 238.
South Carolina, Honey Sources of, 238.
South Dakota, Honey Sources of, 238.
Spangler, D. W., 182.
Spanish needle, 59, 134, 135, 148, 155,
Sparkle-berry, 94.
Spider plant, 239.
Spikeweed, 57, 240.
Spring beauty, 241.
Spruce, 241.
Spurge, 236.
Squash, 59, 243.
Stachys, 58, 123.
Star thistle, 243.
Stickleaf, 156.
Stikweed, 137.
Stoncerop, 244.
Stork's bill, 222.
Strawberry, 244.
Stringy bark, 56, 251.
Strong, J. L. 198, 273.
Stuart, C. D., 70.
Sumac, 56, 135, 139, 151, 155, 223.
Sunflower, 57, 74, 135, 253.
Sweet boy, 216.
Sweet clover, 8, 9, 13, 22, 56, 88, 131,
134, 135, 139, 151, 245, 271.
Sweet remel 58, 251.
Sweet pepperush, 191.
Symphoricapos racemosus, 48, 133.
235, 272.
Symphocarpos 235.
ocidentalis, 48.
orbiculatus, 132.
Tabacum, 260.
Tagasaste, 261.
Talley, M. B., 66, 163.
Tamarind, 116.
Tamarisk, 57.
Tamarix, 233.
Tangier pea, 117.
Tansy, 15.
Taraxacum officinal, 48, 86, 150.
Tarweed, 57, 254.
Teasel, 135, 235.
Tennessee, Honey Sources of, 256.
Tencrium, 100.
Tescan ebony, 257.
Texas, Honey Sources of, 257.
Tinbibleberry, 215, 233.
Thistle, Bull, 57.
Thistle, Canada, 48, 61.
Thyne, 239.
Thyne, 259.
Tilia americana, 32, 57, 150.
Tilia arropea, 33.
Tisswood, 216.
Tit-ii, 259.
Tobacco, 76, 260.
Toothache-tree, 208.
Touch-me-not, 137.
Tournerofortia helicotropoides, 59.
Townsend, E.D., 188.
Traveler's joy, 71.
Tree alfalfa, 261.
Tree clover, 59, 261.
Tree of heaven, 56, 265.
Tretfoil, shrubby, 128.
Trelease, Wm., 174, 201.
Trichostema lanceolatum 41, 57.
Tridolium, 72, 150, 218.
fucatum, 58.
hybridum, 19, 58.
incararatum, 83.
paretense, 59, 218.
rperens, 57, 117, 276.
Trolium, 261.
Tropical lilac, 261.
Tule unit, 59.
Tupelo, 7, 22, 95, 144, 147, 155, 263.
Tulip-tree, 13, 22, 87, 99, 135, 139, 155, 177, 261, 262.
Turkey mulein, 58, 265.
Turnip, 265.
Ulex europaeus, 58, 109.
Ulmus, 90.
Umbellularia californica, 59.
Utah, Honey Sources of, 265.
Vaccinium, 15, 41.
arboreum, 94.
canadenosine, 41.
corymbosum, 41.
ovalifolium, 41, 48.
pembsylvancum, 41.
Varnish tree, 100, 265.
Verbena, 58, 206.
Verbesina, 84.
Vermont, Honey Sources of, 266.
* [16] Vergonin, 136.
* [17] Veronica andersoiti, 60.
* [18] Vervain, 260.
* [19] Vervain, 57, 58.
* [20] Vetch, 59, 267.
* [21] Vetch, 139.
* [22] Viburnum prunifolium, 38.
* [23] Vicin, 59, 267.
* [24] Vigna sinensis, 81.
* [25] Vine unable, 288, 271.
* [26] Vine milkweed, 38.
* [27] Viper's bugloss, 45.
* [28] Virginia, Honey Sources of, 288.
* [29] Virginia career, 59, 269.
* [30] Virginia waterleaf, 20.
* [31] Virginia's bower, 29, 71.
* [32] Vites, 270.
* [33] Vitis californica, 59.
* [34] Vitis cuifera, 58, 109.
* [35] Walnut, 270.
* [36] Washington, Honey Sources of, 271.
* [37] Watermelton, 58, 273.
* [38] Waterweed, 58.
* [39] Waterweed, California, 273.
* [40] Wattle, 11, 58.
* [41] Vaxberry, 285.
* [42] Weather and Honey Production, 273.
* [43] West Virginia, Honey Sources of, 273.
* [44] White alder, 199.
* [45] White brush, 276.
* [46] White clover, 7, 8, 14, 15, 22, 57, 117.
* [47] Vucca, 56, 100, 280, 288.
* [48] Vild alfalfa, 56, 377.
* [49]
## Appendix A MERICAN Honey PLANTS BY FRAN C. PELELETT
**The first book in the English language on the subject of honey plants**
\(\Lambda_{ ext{i}}^{ ext{i}}\)knowledge of sources of nectar is fundamental to the success of the beekeeper, as the difference of a mile or two in distance often doubles the returns from the apiary on account of better pasturage.
This book is the result of years of study and visits to important honey producing sections, from New England to California, and from Canada to Florida and Texas.
An authoritative book by an expert beekeeper and reliable naturalist. Profusely illustrated with original photographs.
300 large pages, 155 fine illustrations, cloth bound. Price $2.50
**American Bee Journal, Hamilton, Illinois**
## 1 Scientific Queen Rearing by G. M. DOOLITTLE
An old work that has a had a big sale. Gives Doo-little's methods of queen rearing by artificial grafting. We advise " Practical Queen Rearing " as preferable, but the student or commercial breeder who desires to practice cell grafting will find this work interesting.
Price cloth binding, $1.00. Leatherette, 50c.
## 2 American Bee Journal
**Edited by C. P. Dadant and Frank C. Pellett**
**Questions answered by DR. C. C. MILLER**
**Oldest Bee Journal in the English Language. A 36 page Monthly Magazine**
**Subscription $1.00 per year. Canadian postage 15c; Foreign, 25c extra**
**Every phase of beekeeping is covered in the Journal, every section of the country receives attention. The market page alone is worth several times the subscription price to beekeepers with honey for sale.**
**New methods, latest news, illustrated articles on honey plants, free legal service department, questions answered, profusely illustrated, first and best in its field.**
**If the American Bee Journal is wanted in combination with any one of our bee books, add 75c to the regular price of the book and both book and Journal will be sent postpaid.**
# APIARY EXPERIMENTS.
**CLARENCE P. GILLETTE.**
PUBLISHED BY THE EXPERIMENT STATION,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
## Appendix E Foundations in comb building.
### E.1.1 By Clarence P. Gilllettes
Honey bees collect liquid sweets from all available sources, chiefly in the form of nectar from flowers, and when the product has been elaborated in the honey-stomach and afterwards stored in comb, we call it honey.
'The material from which the comb is built is not collected as wax, but is formed within the body and secreted in the form of thin scales between the abdominal segments on the under side.
As the wax is elaborated within the body, the bee must be supplied with food out of which to form it and, according to experiments reported on another page, it requires about one pound of wax for every twenty-five pounds of honey stored in comb. The food required for the secretion of wax is, for the most part, honey ; and as it requires several pounds of corn to produce one pound of beef or butter, so it doubtless requires several pounds of honey as food for worker bees to enable them to produce one pound of wax.
But the consumption of honey for wax production does not represent the total cost of the wax to the colony. The bees that secrete it are called off from the field force, so that the income of the colony is lessened. In a state of nature this wax production entails no heavy drain upon the the colony, as the comb, once built, lasts for years; but where comb honey is being produced for the market, it becomes a matter of economic importance to know to what extent and in what form wax can best be furnished bees for their use in comb building.
So far as we know at present, there is but one general way to furnish the wax for this use, and that is in some form of artificial comb foundation. But their are many types of this foundation. Is it better to have the base or midrib only--the "no wall" foundation? or is it better to have the cell walls outlined for the bees? If the latter, should we have these walls short or long? In either case, isit better to put most of the wax in the midrib or the cell walls? When it is determined how the wax is best proportioned between the midrib and cell walls, what weight of foundation is best?
The experiments here reported were undertaken for the purpose of casting some light upon these and related problems and, it is believed, with some good results. It is not to be expected that all these questions are fully settled in this paper.
DO BESS USE WAX FROM ARTIFICIAL FOUNDATIONS TO EXTEND THE
cell walls and the comb midrib?
The common belief that wax is so used was graphically proven by the following experiment:
A few sheets of thin foundation that was made black by the addition of lamp black to the melted wax were prepared for me by Mr. C. B. Elliott, of Denver. This foundation was used in sections which were placed in supers for comb honey. In some sections starters one inch wide were used, while in others were placed full sheets. The bees accepted this black foundation as readily as any and built comb upon it. A photograph of comb built upon this foundation is shown in Plate 1. At \(a\) is a section containing a starter one inch wide that the bees had worked but little. At \(b\) are two cross sections of comb built upon such a starter. The white cross-lines show where the lower edges of the starters came, and the dark color shows to what extent the foundation was used in extending the comb. At \(c\) is a section of drawn comb built upon a short starter as shown at \(a\). The white line marks the lower margin of the foundation, and the dark color in the comb shows to what extent the foundation was used in building down the comb. At \(d\) is shown comb built on a large piece of the black foundation. The cell walls are deep black at the bottom and gradually fade until the top or outer end of the wall is reached, where the dark color hardly shows. This could only come about by the bees using other wax, probably directly from their bodies, which was mixed with the wax of the foundation.
These experiments prove so conclusively that bees do use wax from foundations to extend both cell walls and midrib, that we are now ready to ask:
IS THE WAX OF THE MIDRIB OF THE FOUNDATION USED IN COMB BUILDING, AND, IF so, will IT BE cut down TO THE THINNESS OF THE MIDRIB IN NATURAL COMB?
To determine these points we shall have to compare the thickness of the artificial foundation with the thickness of the comb midrib built upon the foundation, and the latter with the midrib of comb built entirely by the bees.
The accompanying table gives, in the upper line, the heaviest weights found ; in the second line the lightest weights ; and in the third line the average weights, computed from a good number of examples in each case. The excess in weight above that of the mid-rib of natural worker comb is given in the bottom line.
The differences in weight between these foundations and the midribs of comb built upon them do not represent the weight of the wax removed from the midrib of the foundation by the bees, as the foundation has short cell walls which are also thinned. These may be seen by looking at illustrations of sections of foundation in Plates 2 and 4. It will be seen by the table that none of the comb built on foundation has a midrib as light as that of the natural worker comb, though, in some cases, the midribs of comb on thin and extra thin super foundations and on the "1899" deep-cell foundation are but little heavier than those of natural comb.
It will also be noticed that, while the midrib of the "1898" deep-cell foundation itself was but little heavier than that of natural worker comb, the comb built upon this foundation had a midrib much heavier than that of the natural. The reason for this will be given directly. The table also shows that the heavier the midrib of the foundation, the heavier will be the midrib of the comb upon the foundation. This would be a general rule that might have exceptions.
The above table shows that the very heavy foundation gave a comb midrib weighing 5.90 grains more to the square inch than the midrib of natural comb. Medium brood foundation gave a midrib 3.08 grains heavier to the square inch, or almost two and one-half times the weight of natural midrib. The lightest midribs were obtained by the use of extra thin and thin super foundations, averaging but.85 to.90 grains to the square inch more than natural midrib.
The use of the "1898" deep-cell foundation manufactured by Mr. E. B. Weed gave rather surprising results. The midrib from the foundation, before it had been worked over by the bees, averaged but.40 grains to the square inch more than the natural midrib, while the midrib of comb built on this foundation weighed 1.34 grains more. The midrib of this foundation was not uniform in thickness, in some places being thinner and in others thicker than in natural comb, as shown in Plate 4, Fig. \(d\). Where the midrib was thick there was little or no thinning by the bees, but where it was very thin they reinforced the weak places by "plastering" on a quantity of wax. These thickened places are plainly shown at \(n\), Fig. \(c\), and at \(f\) of the plate just mentioned ; and at \(b\) of Plate 1, and account for the increased weight of the comb midrib. Fig. \(f\), just mentioned, is from one of the worst samples I have seen. Natural midrib is shown at \(e\).
The difference in weight between the heavier artificial foundations and the midribs of the comb built upon them is too great to result from the thinning of the short cell walls alone, and can only be accounted for on the supposition that the bees do remove wax from the midribs of these foundations. The examination under a microscope of any heavy foundation that the bees have just begun to work will show the marks of their mandibles in the wax. At first the wax is left very rough, as shown in Plate 1, Fig. \(g\), considerably magnified. At \(h\) is shown the smooth bottoms of the finished cells on the same foundation, which was medium brood in both cases.
To be convinced that heavy foundations have their midribs thinned, but not thinned to correspond with the midribs of natural comb, the reader has only to look at the figures in Plate 2. At \(a\) is shown a section of heavy foundation, and at \(b\) and \(g\) are shown midribs of comb built on this foundation. The lower third of \(b\) is a midrib of natural comb built on the foundation. At \(c\) and the lower end of \(d\) are shown sections of the medium brood foundation, while the upper portion of \(d\) and all of \(e\) show to what extent the midrib of this foundation was thinned. Notice also in this connection, that the full thinning of both foundation and cell walls is accomplished while the walls are yet quite short.
The fact that foundations are thinned was also shown by actual measurements. A large number of *'plaster casts of comb on different foundations and of the foundations themselves were made, and then cut in different directions as shown in Plates 2 and 5. This made it possible to cut the wax of the different cells so that the thickness could be measured. A large number of measurements were made and tabulated, but the variations are so great in thickness of both midribs and cell walls in all kinds of comb that I have thought it not worth while to include the table here, but will state the general results.
+ The common range in thickness of the midrib in naturally built worker comb was found to be between.08 and.16 millimeters. In drone comb the common range was between.12 and.20 millimeters. None of the midribs of comb built on artificial foundations averaged as thin as the natural midrib in worker comb. In some cases those from thin and extra thin super foundations, and the "1899" deep-cell foundation approximated it closely. Where the midrib of a foundation is not thicker than about.17 millimeters, the bees seem not to thin much if any, though they go over the surface with their mandibles and scrape it so that it loses its transparency.
+ It was also noticed that the midrib of any comb was thicker near its attachment, at the top, sides or bottom, than at some distance from these attachments. Illustrations of this may be seen in Plates 2 and 3. Fig. \(c\) of the latter plate shows a cut through the comb of a pound section made from side to side.
The heavier midrib and cell walls in drone comb are necessary to give it the same strength as worker comb, because the larger the cells the fewer the number, and the smaller the amount of wax required to build them to a given thickness.
Sections of natural worker comb are shown at \(b,c,\) and \(e,\) and the lower halves of \(a\) and \(g\) of Plate 3. Drone comb is shown in the lower part of \(i\) in Plate 2, and in \(f\) of Plate 3.
The midrib of comb built on "1898" deep-cell foundation was very irregular in thickness, for the reasons already given, and averaged about the same as drone comb. See Plate 4, Figs. \(c\) and \(f\). Medium brood foundation also gave wide variations in the amount of thinning.
At Plate 2, \(d\) and \(e,\) are two of the best thinned samples I have seen, though little drawn. At \(f\), Plate 5, is a sample of fully drawn comb on this foundation which has the midrib thinned but little.
At \(f\), Plate 2, is shown a section of super foundation obtained from Mr. Elliott, of Denver, and at \(h\) is a section through comb on this foundation. The midrib averages about.17 millimeters in thickness, or fully as heavy as the midrib in drone comb. The upper half of \(i\) in this plate is also on this foundation, and the midrib is rather heavier than the midrib of the drone comb which the bees built, shown in the lower half of the figure.
At \(j\) of Plate 2 is shown a section of thin, and at \(l\) of the extra thin super foundations. The two differ chiefly in that the former has rather heavy cell walls, while the extra thin has almost no walls. At \(k\) is a section showing partially drawn comb on the thin super foundation, and at \(g\), Plate 5, is a sample of fully drawn comb on the extra thin foundation. It will be noticed that the midribs of the comb samples built on these foundations are in most cases nearly, if not quite, as thick as in the foundations themselves. At \(a\) of Plate 3 is a section through comb, the upper two-fifths of which was built upon the thin super foundation and the lower three-fifths is natural. The midrib of the foundation seems not to have been thinned at all, and contrasts plainly with the midrib of the portion that was built entirely by the bees, and also with the midribs of figures \(b\) and \(c\) of the same plate, both of which represent natural comb.
At \(g\) of Plate 4 is shown a section of the beautiful "1899" deep-cell foundation, as I have termed it, that is manufactured by Mr. E. B. Weed. At \(h\) of the same plate is shown comb slightly worked on this foundation, and at \(a\) of Plate 5 is shown fully drawn comb on the same. Here again it will be noticed that the midrib is scarcely if at all thinned, and is as heavy as that of drone comb.
The evidence thus obtained by measuring the thickness of the midribs of foundations and of the comb built upon them bears out the results obtained by weighing, namely, that heavy foundations have their midribs thinned some, usually much, by the bees when they build comb upon them ; but these are not thinned, in any case, to the lightness of natural worker comb. If the midrib is not thicker than.17 millimeters--.068 of an inch--the bees thin it little if any ; if the midrib is much thinner than the normal, the bees are likely to thicken it by the addition of wax, making it much heavier than in natural comb.
Does the use of artificial foundations result in thicker cell walls in the comb?
It is evident that a slight thickening of the cell walls increases the weight of the comb more than the same thickening of the midrib. *Cheshire estimated that the area of the cell walls of worker comb one inch thick is fully ten times that of the midrib upon which they are built. If this be true (and the difference in area is greater when the comb is more than an inch thick), then the thickening of the cell wall by.01 of a millimeter increases the weight of comb one inch thick as much as thickening the midrib.10 of a millimeter.
The thickness of the cell walls is much less than that of the midrib. In natural worker comb I have found it varying between.045 and.07 of a millimeter, with an average of not more than.06 of a millimeter (.0024 of an inch). It has been thought by some that, though the bees may leave a heavy midrib in comb built on foundation, they will thin the cell walls down to the thickness in natural comb.
Although the cell walls of a large number of sections of comb have been measured under the camera of a compound microscope, it is difficult to give these in tabulated form, as there is so much irregularity in thickness. The heaviest part, except the extreme outer end, is close to the base of the cell, and the thinest is beyond the middle of its length. Where comb on heavy foundations was studied, the bases of the cells were found to have distinctly thickened walls for some distance out, and this thickening was often quite irregular, as may be seen at \(o\) in Figures \(g\), \(h\), and \(i\) of Plate 2, and Figure \(b\) of Plate 4.
None of the foundations used in the experiment gave as delicately thin cell walls as are found in natural worker comb, except the thin and extra thin super foundations and, possibly, the rather shallow deep-cell foundation put out in 1899, which was placed upon the market by the A. I. Root Co., and which is being sold quite largely this year. I was not able in many cases to detect by measurements that the cell walls on these foundations exceeded the average thickness in natural comb. The difference, if any, is very slight. Figure \(g\) in Plate 4 shows the thickness of the cell walls of this foundation in cross section, and at \(b\) of Plate 6 is shown a section of the walls parallel to the midrib and quite close to it. Figure \(a\) of Plate 5 is a section of fully drawn comb on this foundation, and it will be seen that the cell walls have nearly, or quite, the delicacy of those in natural comb.