Hi Barry,

I was going to refrain from comment, less it be construed as criticism.
What
follows is not criticism, just observations of what I have to accept as "a
given"
to allow your investigation to continue.  It's the same as I accept as "a
given"
that when correctly used smoke calms bees.  (Notice how I have haggled
the smoke statement since my last post?)

> What I extrapolated from this process was that bees can not, or don't,
> change in cell size beyond a certain range per generation. That range
would
> appear to be around .2 - .25 mm..
Hmmm.  I haven't done the work, and you were careful not to present it as
hard fact, merely extrapolation, so I'll accept there is something about
.2-.25 mm. per generation that is simply "so", and will move on.

> I see the term "what they want" or "natural size" (... and ...) have a
> hard time logically working this out in my mind to accept this as a
correct
> interpretation of what we see happening.
Well, this gets a bit esoteric, but what is "natural" in the first place?  I
think
the point of view that "man-made" leaves the realm of what is "natural" is
flawed.  For better or worse, man is a part of nature and if man has caused
it to be that bees of the 21st century are larger than bees of the 19th
century,
it is natural for bees to be larger today than they were over 100 years ago.

Whether it's natural or not is a red herring.

Having said that, the current test hypothesis becomes one of will smaller
bees reared in smaller cells have an advantage (or not) over varroa.  What
the bees want is also irrelevant.  Today's bees may want larger cells and
"naturally" build them.  Bees resulting from pressures to reduce their size
may want smaller comb and "naturally" build them.  The pressure to produce
smaller bees that will be comfortable in smaller comb may result in bees
with
an advantage over varroa.  THAT is the test hypothesis!

All this debate/bickering over big bees/small bees/natural comb/unnatural
comb is noise, and it's easy to lose sight of what is actually being
hypothesized, which is that smaller bees that are comfortable in smaller
comb have an advantage over varroa that larger bees in larger comb
(common in today's natural or unnatural environmet) do not!  I hope this
diffuses the debate and puts it more in terms of scientific hypothesis
testing.

>> My question is, if indeed a smaller cell size makes for varroa tolerance
>> what is it about a smaller cell size that impacts the varroa populations?
> I think we all want to know the answer to this question. We can speculate,
> but until lab work is done by researchers, we'll have to come up with our
> own ideas.
Better yet, let the speculation rest and continue with the scientific
investigation.
I'm glad you and others are doing so!

> And I want to know that it not only works for the Lusby's, but also for me
> and everyone else. This is why I have taken it upon myself to follow their
> steps with my bees in my region, so I can answer this question.
Similar to what's being done with SMR bees and the effort to distribute the
genes to a broad range of a "natural environment".  Replecation is a key
component of "proof" or at least acceptance.

>> Thanks Barry for your update.
> I'm happy to share it all.
Again, thanks.  It's a tough hypothesis to test and prove (or not).  I'm
glad
that you and others are willing to make the effort.  It's more than I would
do.

Aaron Morris - thinking it's naturally unnatural!