On the same page as Robert quotes:

>Several times it has been suggested that we enlarge the race of
>honey-bees by giving them larger cells; and some circumstances seem
>to indicate that something may be done in this direction, although I
>have little hope of any permanent enlargement in size, unless we
>combine with it the idea of selecting the largest bees to propagate
>from. By making cells smaller than ordinarily, we can get small bees
>with very little trouble; and I have seen a whole nucleus of bees so
>small as to be really laughable, just because the comb they were
>hatched from was set an an angle so that one side was concave and
>the other convex. The small bees came from the concave side. Their
>light, active movements as they sported in front of the hive, made
>them a pretty and amusing sight for those fond of curiosities.
>Workers reared in drone cells are, if I am correct, sometimes extra
>large in size; but as to whether we can make them permanently larger
>by such a course, I am inclined to doubt.
>
>A. I. Root, 1890


Robert and all:
I am afraid that the whole measurement thing is a dead end, because
we cannot measure combs from the 1880s ourselves. Therefore, we do
not know if the combs were different or the method of measuring was
slack.

When someone says 5 cells to the inch, what is the level of accuracy?
Were it 4.9 or 5.1 cells to the inch, would they round it to 5? When
someone writes 5.01 mm, they are signalling a high level of accuracy,
but Root refers to 5 to the inch, and 3 1/2 to the inch, indicating a
rather broad brush -- not very subtle differences.

--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>