> >> Allen Dick wrote: > > We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size > significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large > foundation and that they will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few > generations if left to their own devices. > > Beesource.com web site regarding cell size and have had no problem seeing in > > these articles where the size of the honey bee has been enlarged. I've Hi Barry et al. You know, I have been looking all over for the rest of the second quote above and cannot find it. Anyhow, I appreciate your contributing the statement below. The numbers are entirely consistent with what I have been trying to say all along and the quote below says it better than I have been able thus far: > The quality were NOT heritable/hereditary so that a swarm from a beehive > with cells of 700 in freedom goes back to 734 cells and after that goes back > to 835 to 870 cells Using the chart at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, these numbers translate to about 5.75 mm, 7.4 mm, and 5.25 to 5.15 mm respectively. The last numbers are what I consider to be the natural size and are consistent with what A.I. Root reports for natural comb size back in 1891 when foundation was just catching on. He says in the 1891 second edition of The ABC & XYZ...: "The bees build two distinct regular sizes -- drone and worker cells. The worker comb measures very nearly five cells to the inch on an average. Some specimens average a little larger, and some a little smaller; but when the comb is at all irregular, it is quite apt to be a little larger... Contradicting himself slightly and showing (IMO) some bias, he goes on to say: "The best specimens of true worker comb generally contain 5 cells *within* the space of an inch" (my emphasis) therefore this measure has been adopted for the comb foundation. If there are five cells to the inch, a square inch would give, on an average, about 25 cells, and the 25 on the opposite side would make 50 young bees that would be hatched from every square inch of solid brood. As foundation is so much more regular than the natural comb, we get a great many more bees in a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we can fairly claim to have improved on nature". (His footnotes indicate that the true numbers are 29,29, and 58 and that he has rounded off). Using the table at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/images/Understanding_Cell_Size.gif on page http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, we can see that having 5 cells per inch would require 5.1 mm cells. Interestingly, Root has stated that, from the natural worker comb he has examined, "The worker comb measures very *nearly* five cells to the inch on an average". (My emphasis) and then says that the 'best' samples measure "five cells *within* the space of an inch" (My emphasis). In the first case it is clear to me that given one inch of measure, one can get nearly five cells into it. In other words, five cells are a hair over an inch. In the second case, he says that five cells barely fit into an inch in the samples of natural comb he considers 'best'. He also claims: "As foundation is so much more regular than the natural comb, we get a great many more bees in a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we can fairly claim to have improved on nature". This is a strong admission that his 5.1 mm foundation packs in cells more densely than the average in natural comb. He is proud of the fact and boasts about it. The table shows the next size up to be 5.2 mm at 4-7/8 cells per inch. That just happens to be the size Root was making by 1913, according to the material on http://www.Beesource.com/ attributed to D. Lusby. We thus see that at the time of writing in 1891, he was biased towards a slight crowding of the cells to the 5.1 size, but by 1913, he had settled on 5.2 mm as being the proper size for foundation. (These sizes are specially marked on the above mentioned conversion chart -- FWIW). 5.2 mm to 5.3 just happens to be the very size that I personally arrived at as being natural for the bees I have seen over the past twenty-five years, and which comes up again and again as a median size reported from North America and Europe on the page where I recorded the results of my little informal survey. I'm not sure what your conclusions were, but I should imagine they are not much different. Maybe you could point us to your results? FWIW, I also share Root's desire to have more bees per square inch, mostly due to the question of heat conservation in cool weather. I draw the line, though at wanting to reduce the size beyond what is natural for my bees, so I consider 5.1 to be a *bit* tight, especially when we allow for increase in wall thickness with use and distortion that may occur over time. I prefer to err on the generous side. Since I got interested and researched this topic last March and April, I have become aware that much of my comb uses a larger size foundation, and that does concern me somewhat. I am, however, pleased that I purchased 10,000 Pierco frames a while back and that they have 5.25 mm cells, which is close to optimal compared to the other foundations on the market. I'm not going to comment much here about the question of cocoon build-up that was so well documented in a recent post, other than to say that 'it depends'. I've seen where it happens and also I've seen where the bees tear the cocoons out. Maybe they let them build in overly large cells, and tear them out if things get crowded. Maybe different bees (hygienic?) do more comb reconstruction? ... Back to your quote: I'm quite curious as to how long it takes to get from the 5.75 to the 5.2 range in the article you quote. It does not specify timeframe. This is something I am a bit unclear about, since I am not sure what determines the size of comb bees make, whether it is the (possibly assorted) sizes of the individuals building it, or perhaps the variety of bee, or even memory of what they came from. I mention this last idea because there is some evidence that the bees remember the magnetic orientation of their parent hive when they swarm. I also wonder, because, around here anyhow, bees that swarm off larger foundation sizes seem to make swarm nests at 5.2 to 5.3 mm. I should also mention that in my hives there are typically a range of foundation brands and ages of comb; so the bees are maybe confused? Back to the quote again: I gather that immediately after removal from the monster foundation combs, in the quote they go to 7.4, and then in a generation or so, to 5.2 and then stay there, according to this source? Or do they build a variety all at once. In my experience there is more variety in cell size in natural comb than the averages would indicate. I have not yet reported here the beautiful natural observation hive I found recently, but I will now: A photo is at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/images/VolObs.jpg and will stay there. However, the background and description is currently in the Thursday September 7th, 2000 notes at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/. That URL will change when I archive the current diary pages, but the date can serve as a marker for any latecomers reading this. I mention this here because in the photo one can see a quite variety of cell sizes and shapes in just one hive. If anyone wants the original large image that prints nicely at 8-1/2 x 11", just write me with 'Send Picture' in the subject line. allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served..