BEE-spoke-data/bees-v0 huggingface dataset:
THE NECESSITY OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY IN SEEKING THE CONVERSION OF THE UNGOOLLY: and A Plea for Open Prayer-Meetings. Two Addresses on Home Mission Work. Demy 8vo. 6d.
WILBERFORCE.--_SPECERES ON MISSIONS. By the Right Rev. Samuel Wilberforce, D.D. Edited by the Rev. Henry Rowley. 8vo. cloth boards, 7s.
**WILKINSON.--**_Works by the Right Rev. G. H. WILKINSON, D.D. Bishop of Truro._
ABSOLUTION: A Sermon. 8vo, paper covers, 1t._
BEYE RECONCILED TO GOD. 1d.; 6s, per 100. [New Edit. CONFESSION: A Sermon. 8vo, paper covers, 1s. FIRST STEPS TO HOLY COMMUNION. The Substance of Four Simple Instructions after Confirmation. Fcap. 8vo. 6d. A Superior Edition in Old Style, bound in white, 1s. HINDRANCES and HELPS to the DEEPENING of the SPIRITUAL LIFE AMONG CLERGY and PEOPLE. 3d. HOLY WEEK AND EASTER. Fcap. 8vo. cloth boards, 1s. [Fifth Edition. HOW TO KEEP LENT. Notes on Quinquagesima Sunday Address. 3d. [11th Thousand. HOW TO DEAL WITH TEMPATION. A Lenten Address. Fcap. 8vo. 3d. INSTRUCTIONS IN THE DEVOTIONAL LIFE. Fcap. 8vo. price 6d. A superior edition, 1s. [52nd Thousand. INSTRUCTIONS IN THE WAY OF SALVATION. Fcap. 8vo. price 6d. A superior edition, 1s. [26th Thousand. LENT LECTURES. Fcap. 8vo. cloth boards, 1s. [15th Thousand. MORNING AND EVENING PA PAYERS FOR CHILDREN. On Card, 1d. PENITENTIARY WORK: Its Principles, Method, Difficulties, and Encouragements. Fcap. 8vo. price 6d. PRAYERS FOR CHILDREN. 32mo. 2d, 'THE CHASTENING of the LORD.' Four Bible Readings given at St. Peter's, Eaton Square. Fcap. 8vo. cloth boards, 1s. [9th Thousand.'THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS.' A Help to the Higher Life of Communicants. Fcap. 8vo. cloth boards, 1s. [22nd Thousand. THE POWER OF SUFFERING: A Thought for Holy Week. 6d. per Packet of Twelve. THE POWER OF WEAKNESS: A Thought for Good Friday. Fcap. 8vo. 3d. THOUGHTS for the DAY of INTERCESSION. 1d.; 6s, per 100. [15th Thousand. THOUGHTS ON CALVARY. The Substance of Two Good Friday Addresses. Fcap. 8vo. 3d. TWO ADDRESSES TO COMMUNICANTS. Fcap. 8vo. 6d.
WELLS GARDNER, DARTON, & Co., Paternoster Buildings, E.C.
## Appendix A Dictionary
- OF -
Practical Apiculture.
g:ving the CORRECT MEANING OF NEARLY FIVE HUNDRED TERMS, ACCORDING TO THE USAGE OF THE BEST WRITERS. INTENDED AS A GUIDE TO UNI- FORMIY OF EXPRESSION AMONGST B E E - K E E P E R S.
**With Numerous Illustrations, Notes and Practical Hints.**
**AUTHOR OF "HOW TO USE THE MICROScope," ETC. EDITOR OF "THE YOUNG SCIENTIST."**
**NEW YORK :**
**THE INDUSTRIAL PUBLICATION COMPANY.**
**1884.**
**Copyright Scapra, 1884, by 7000 Phin**Entered According to Act of Congress, in the Year 1884, BY JOHN PHIN,
In the Office of the Lithuan of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
## Preface.
The compilation of the following collection of terms used in Bebee-keeping was commenced some years ago, when the author held the position of Professor of Agriculture in the Agricultural College of the State of Pennsylvania. We believe the first Lectures on Agriculture ever delivered in any College or Technological School in this country, and practically illustrated by bees and hives, were those given by the author, during the year 1867, at the Institution just named.
In preparing his lectures, the author was impressed with the importance of securing uniformity, accuracy, and definiteness in the terms used, and as a guide for himself and students, he compiled a brief vocabulary, extending to about two hundred and fifty vocables.
For some years subsequent to this time, he was unable to devote any attention to bee-keeping; the subject consequently dropped from his mind, the MSS, was laid away with other things, and by the merest accident escaped the disastrous fire at 37 Park Row, New York, which destroyed the author's working library, in January, 1881, as only a few days before the fire occurred the box containing it was removed to his residence. Having been recently placed in a position to resume his interest in that most fascinating of all pursuits--Apleulture--the old notes were found, and a perusal of them brought up many strange thoughts and associations. A pretty wide reading of books and journals, during the past year or two, had impressed the author more than ever with the importance of some general guide on this subject, and as the same feeling seemed to have taken possession of the minds of many prominent apleulturists, it was decided to publish it.
To this end the entire vocabulary was re-written and revised, so that the work has been brought down to the latest date. Few persons can have any idea of the amount of labor that this has involved, but notwithstanding the apparently very simple character of the volume which is the result, the number of general lexicons, special treatises on bees (from old Gervase Markham, 1610, down to Alley's work on Queen-Rearling), journals and technical works which have been laid under contribution, is a surprise to the author himself, now that the work is completed. He has taken nothing on trust, but has endeavored to refer to original authorities in every case, and as the great libraries of New York are singularly deficient in works on beveeping, he has been compelled to rely _wholly_ on his own collection. This may possibly induce the reader to exercise more than usual leniency in regard to the shortcomings of the book.
A word or two in regard to the authorities upon whom we have relied may not be out of place. These authorities are of two very distinct kinds: 1. Works and papers on Apleulture; and 2. Dictionaries and treatises on Technology.
It is an unfortunate fact that most of the writers on be-keeping have been deficient in general education--some of them even lamenting this fact in their works. Of course there are some notable exceptions--Markham (1610), Warder (1676), Dunbar, Cotton, Bevan, Langstroh, Cook, and a few others. We therefore find words used by such writers in different senses, and in many cases improperly--as, for example, the words hatch, hybrid, rabbet, etc. Now, while we have entered our protest against the improper use of well-known words, we must remember that in the false senses thus given to them, they have crept into general use, and such use is not to be lightly changed. As Herschel well says : " Hardly anything can counterbalance the evil of disturbing well-established names, which have once acquired a general circulation." Moreover it must be borne in mind that the functions of a technical dictionary like the present are two-fold: It should not only give the right word for the right place, but it should enable us to understand the writings of all those who have treated upon the subject. We at first proposed to confine this lexicon to those words only which are in general use, but we soon found the impossibility of so doing. The great difficulty of drawing any well-defined line rendered such a course out of the question. We have therefore given every word specially related to bee-keeping, with the exception of general botanical and entomological terms. To have included these would have doubled the size of the volume, without any corresponding practical gain. So, too, we have not deemed it advisable to discuss the names of _special_ forms except in a general way. Thus we give not only _kire_, but _box live, morable frame-hice, leaf-hice,_ etc., but we have not felt that it came within the scope of our work to give descriptions of such modifications as the American hive, the Gallup hive, etc., etc. Neither have we attempted to exclude objectionable words. We have rather aimed to give every word, simply contenting ourselves with marking those that are obsolete or improper. Even such an absurd term as _moth-miller_ finds its place in this Dictionary, so that the student may be warned against its use. Therefore, even the catalogues of dealers have been ransaeked for terms and descriptions of various articles. Having secured the list of vocables, the next step was to note their meaning and mark those which are obsolete or improper. In this connection it will be found by the careful student that as regards technical subjects, we have, amongst our _dictionaries_, no _ultimate_ authority--that is to say, none from whose decisions we do not feel perfectly at liberty to appeal without hesitation. Those who have studied our best and abtest dictionaries must have felt that in many points their deficiencies, as regards technical subjects, are so great that no independent worker will consent to be trampled by them. We acknowledge them as authorities only _when we know them to be right._
The list of the dictionaries which have served us in the preparation of this volume, includes all those of most importance. Beginning with Bailey (1735), Walker (1798), and adding Johnson, Ogilvie ("The Imperial Dictionary," 4 vols., edited by Annandale), Richardson (editions of 1838 and 1865), Webster, Worcester, and several minor ones, we have generally been able to get not only the _usual_ meaning of the word under consideration, but its scope and and proper application. When any doubt occurred as to the propriety of the application of any word, we have sought firm ground through the medium of its history and etymology, and in this direction "Skeats' Dictionary has proved invaluable. For special information in regard to chemical subjects we have relied upon Watt's "Dictionary of Chemistry" (8 vols.), and the works of Wagner, Muspratt, etc. The technical dictionaries of Ure (4 vols. 1878), Brande (3 vols, 1875), and the "Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology," edited by Todd (5 vols. _v. d._) have often been of service. From recent general cyclopaedias, properly so-called, we have never received any very great assistance, and therefore have never made any special efforts to add them to our library. From the older cyclopaedia of Rees, and the "Penny Cyclopaedia," much interesting historical matter may be gleaned. These we have, as also the "Lexleon Technicum" of Harris (1710), Jamleson's "Dictionary of Arts and Sciences," Gwilt's "Cyclopaedia of Architecture," Nicholson's " Architectural Dictionary," etc., all of which have been occasionally consulted with good results. The Botanical Glossarles of the late Prof. Balfour, and of M. C. Cooke, we have referred to for some words. In entomology, Westwood, Burmeister, Kirby and Spence, Harris, Dunean, Packard and Sluekard have been at hand.
In matters of general apleultural practice we have depended largely upon our own experience, which began more than a quarter of a century ago, and enables us to look back with interest to the time when we procured our first Italian Queen from the early product of the importation of 8, B, Parsons. This we have supplemented with the records given by others in the journals devoted to apleulture. We were among the early subscribers to the _American Bee Journal,_ and although we did not take it for many years, we have now a nearly complete set of this most valuable periodical.
Throughout the work we have endeavored to reach a dispassionate and unprejudiced conclusion as to the value and significance of each word _as used by the best authorities_. It is only in a few cases that we have obtruded our own personal preferences and opinions as against the _general_ custom. In some of these instances we are so clearly and decidedly right that the words we condemn will never again be used by _respective_ writers in the senses which we have condemned. Such words are _hatch, rabbet_, and a few others. Then we have words in regard to which we know we are right, though we are not quite sosure of being able to convince others of the fact ; _fertile_ and _hybrid_ are good examples of such words. And lastly, there are the compound words formed from the word egg : Egg-workers, egg-drones, egg-queens. In regard to these, all we can say is that if we are not right we ought to be. Philologically and scientifically we are correct; whether others will see it in the same light that we do is of course a question to be determined. We await the decision of the majority. It may, not, however, be out of place to present here the reasons for the change, which we have proposed. In speaking of the different kinds of eggs laid by the queen (perhaps different _conditioned_ eggs would be more correct, as all the eggs are probably of one kind) it is usual to speak of "worker eggs" and " drone eggs," when we wish to designate eggs which respectively will produce drones or workers.
Now, to the ordinary reader, knowing nothing of bee-keeping, but thoroughly understanding English, these terms would signify eggs laid by workers and by drones, just as we speak of hen eggs, duck eggs, turkey eggs, when we refer to eggs laid by turkeys, ducks and hens. _And in fuel the tera worker eggs does sometimes mean eggs laid by workers._ The ordinary expressions, therefore, are not only nonsense, but absolutely incorrect in some cases ; for example, we have no such thing as " drone eggs ;" drones do not lay eggs. But if we use the word egg as a prefix to the words drone, worker, queen, we then express accurately the facts in the case and " egg-drones," egg-workers," and " egg-queens," denote queens, workers and drones in the condition of eggs. We thus secure scientific accuracy, and avoid the double meaning which attaches at present to the expression " worker eggs."
We have included in this Dictionary the names of the different new races of bees that have been described and recommended. It is proper to say that in this department we have had little or no experience ; the descriptions have been copied from the best accessible sources, and are given for what they are worth.
In sending forth this little work the author would ask those into whose hands it may fall to give him, either personally or through the Bee Journals, such ertitelensus on mistakes and omissions as their knowledge'may suggest. All such ertitelisms will be taken kindly, where kindly meant, for no one appreciates more fully than he does the shortcomings of this work. And although it is one of the sound canons of literature--one which the writer has never yet violated--that an author should not reply to his critics, yet in this case, as he belleves that the general good will be best served by so doing, he will either accept any sensible corrections that may be offered, or give his reasons for rejecting them.
JOHN PHIN.
Cedar Brae, Puterson, N. J., March, 1884.
" The imposition of a name on any subject of contemplation, be it a material object, a phenomenon of nature, or a group of facts and relations, looked upon in a peculiar point of view, is an epoch in its history of great importance. It not only enables us readily to refer to it in conversation or writing, without circumlocution, but, what is of more consequence, it gives it a recognized existence in our own minds, as a matter for separate and peculiar consideration ; places it on a list for examination ; and renders it a head or title, under which information of various descriptions may be arranged ; and, in consequence, fits it to perform the office of a connecting link between all the subjects to which such information may refer."
_Sir J. F. W. Herschel._
Not only is our language governed by our ideas, but our ideas, thoughts, and reasoning are too often governed by our language. Loose language is the invariable accompaniment of indefinite thoughts, while that which can be clearly expressed is in general clearly and definitely comprehended. And the logician well knows the dangerous fallacies which may be introduced by giving one meaning to certain terms at one time, and a different meaning at another. " The use of language is not confined to its being the medium through which we communicate our ideas to one another ; it fulfils a no less important function as an instrument of thought, not being merely its vehicle, but giving it wings for flight. Metaphysicians are agreed that scarcely any of our intellectual operations could be carried on, to any considerable extent, without the agency of words. None but those who are conversant with the philosophy of mental phenomena can be aware of the immense influence that is exercised by language in promoting the development of our ideas, in fixing them in the mind and detailing them for steady contemplation. In every process of reasoning, language enters as an essential element, Words are the instruments by which we form allour abstractions, by which we fashion and embody our ideas, and by which we are enabled to glide along a series of premises and conclusions with a rapidity so great as to leave in the memory no trace of the successive steps of the process; and we remain unconscious how much we owe to this potent auxiliary of the reasoning faculty."--_Roget._
It is obvious, however, that if language is to serve us in any such capacity as this, its terms must be accurate and precise, and this precision which is so desirable for our own sakes becomes imperative, if we would seek to learn from others or to teach them. If in ordinary technical matters the terms used are indefinite, we must fail to understand or to be understood, and if they have several different meanings, we will soon find ourselves in the condition of the workers at Baliel--asking for bricks and getting mortar.
Care should therefore be taken to secure uniformity, and this can only be done by carefully studying the different meanings which have been accepted for different words, and rigorously adopting one to the exclusion of all the rest.
It is true that in addition to accuracy a certain degree of elegance is desirable. This can best be attained by careful attention to the principles which govern the construction and use of language, and the exclusion of certain words which are inelegant, unpronounceable, and formed in violation of the accepted canons of philology. A general treatise upon this subject would occupy more space than this entire volume, but it may not be out of place to state a few obvious elementary principles.
**1.** The first rule which ought to govern us in the use of technical terms is that if possible no word should have more than one meaning. Ignorant and uneducated persons who devise a new article are very apt to call it by some name which has already been appropriated to something else, and the consequence is that our technical dictionaries are full of words of double meaning. Better banish a word altogether than allow it to have two meanings. Fortunately, however, in bee-keeping, things have not gone so far that it is impossible to introduce a reform, provided suff ficient authority be given to the right words to enforce their use by writers on subjects connected with this art. The words, colony, hatch, hive, stock, swarm, and some others, are all used at present in several senses, but the true meaning of each is so obvious that it forces itself upon the student as soon as it is presented, and then there is no danger of its ever afterwards being used in a wrong sense except in a moment of thoughtlessness from force of habit. We must acknowledge, however, that this latter danger is one that is not to be despised.
The words cap, clamp, rack, transfer, etc., have each more than one legitimate meaning, and it will be difficult, perhaps, to eradicate altogether the confusion which thus arises. We have made some progress in our efforts to present the subject clearly and soundly, but the matter is not yet fully matured. It demands very thorough examination and great caution, and should be fully discussed in, the public journals before it is embodied in a book.
2. The second rule is, that well-known words, when used in a technical sense, should depart to as slight a degree as possible from the meaning which they have in ordinary language. It will be found that the great majority of technical words are merely ordinary words with a somewhat new meaning added; therefore they should never acquire a signification which shall be _offposed_ to this meaning. This occurs, however, more frequently than one would suppose, and always without any good reason. Let us take the word _rabbet_ as an example. As ordinarily used, and as applied technically by the carpenter, it has a well-defined and fixed meaning, and signifies the recess which is made in the edge of a board by removing a portion of the wood. Thus, for example, in the accompanying cut R is the rabbet. With the movable frame hive came a necessity for a recess in which the arms of the frames might rest, and as this recess was called a rabbet, the word came to be commonly used amongst bee-keepers; but, unfortunately, to their minds it conveyed an idea equivalent to that of _bearing_ or _support_,
And so when it occurred to somebody to attach a thin strip of metal to the edge of the rabbet, so as to make it impossible for the bees to glue the arms fast, these strips were called rabbets!
In the accompanying figure is shown a section of the upper edge of the end of a live, b, and on the rabbet is seen a curved piece of tin, a, one edge of which is intended to support the arm, c, of the frame. 'These tin strips, a, are catalogued and sold as _rabbets_--the fact being that they are just the opposite of rabbets! The proper name for them is _bearings_ or _supports_.
Another word which has been changed somewhat in its meaning, though not wholly by bee-keepers, is the word _fertile_. Of this word Worcester judiciously remarks: "_Fertile_ is applied especially to the soil; _fruitful_ to trees and vegetables; _profile_ to animals " (See _IForcester\({}^{\prime}\)s Dictionary, s.v. fertile_). It is now used by writers on bee-keeping to signify _pregnant_, and the word _fertile_ is employed as equivalent to _imprognate_. This misuse of the word came about through the botanists in this wise: Botany being a favorite study with young ladies of such an age that these words could not be used without a certain degree of indicicacy, teachers very commendably looked about for some other expression, and adopted _fertile_ and its derivatives. From the botanists it passed to the bee-keepers, but without the same good reasons. 'To its use there are many objections, and it is strange that it should ever have been adopted, when the proper wordhas been in general use so long. This word is _fecundate,*_ with its derivatives as given in the body of this work.
Footnote *: For authorities on this point, see Curier's "Animal Kingdom," edl'ed by Prof. W. B. Carpenter, the well-known author of a standard work on Physiology, and Prof. J. O. Westwood, whose work on Entomology, in 2 vols., is an acknowledged authority. These two gentlemen are perhaps the highest authorities in the language. In giving the technical terms used in Zoology, at page 28 we find the following : "When there are sexes the male sex _fecundate,_" In the translation of Huber's work, published in Edinburgh and London (Second Edition, 1808), the word _fecundate_ is always used. See pages 8, 18, 20, 28, 33, 37, 44, etc., etc.
This tendency to soften such expressions as convey coarse or indelicate ideas is a marked, and, from a certain point of view, a laudable trait; but, unfortunately, it is apt to introduce confusion by destroying the sharp clearness of our expressions, and by giving more than one meaning to each word. The tendency is well illustrated in the modern use of the word _meat,_ which formerly was generally used to signify food of any kind, but has now come to serve as a substitute for the word _Mesh_--the latter having been banished as conveying ideas of carrion and objectionable objects. If we ask a modern housekeepinger if she has any meat in the house, she will certainly say **"** No!" unless her larder is provided with flesh of some kind, just as the little girl was puzzletl to know why her papa said grace before tea--there being no flesh on the table, and her catechism expressly giving the grace as **"** to be said before _meat._"