> Did Langstroth ever make any comment about Darwin?  

I think it's clear from this excerpt from the first Langstroth book (1853) what he believed at the time:

Can we believe that these little insects unite so many requisites in the construction of their cells, either by chance, or because they are profoundly versed in the most intricate mathematics ? Are we not compelled to acknowledge that the mathematics must be referred to the Creator, and not to His puny creature? To an intelligent, candid mind, a piece of honey comb is a complete demonstration that there is a “GREAT FIRST CAUSE:” for on no other supposition can we account for so complicated a shape, and yet the only one which can possibly unite so many desirable requisites. 

Thirty years later (1883) the passage is still in the book book, but note that there is are changes:

Is it credible that these little insects can unite so many requisites in the construction of their cells, either by chance, or because they are profoundly versed in the most intricate mathematics? Are we not compelled to acknowledge that the mathematics by which they construct a shape so complicated, and yet the only one which can unite so many desirable requirements, must be referred to the Creator, and not to his puny creature ? To an intelligent and candid mind, the smallest piece of honey-comb is a perfect demonstration that there is a "Great First Cause.” 

The phrase "for on no other supposition can we account," which is perhaps a nod to Darwin, an acknowledgment that there may actually be another way of accounting for this. The Dadants completely rewrote the book and in the 1888 edition, there is nothing about a "Great First Cause.”  Langstroth died soon after.

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html