From: "Bob Harrison" > " Interesting that over a hundred years later we
still can not agree on what
> is the correct size of worker cells today and especially not what was the
> correct size for the 1880's"

There are more references we can add to Bob's research.

Comb building was extensively studied by Huber who reported in his letters
in 1792 that the 'diameter' of worker cells was 2 and  2/5ths 'lines' (12
lines to one inch). Drone cells were 3 and 1/3rd lines.  [Quoted from Huber
Natural History of the Honeybees English edition 1841]. I do not know how
the diameter of a hexagonal cell compares with the distance across the
flats,  which is what we mean when we say small cells are 4.9mm.

Langstroth on the Hive and the Honeybee first came out in 1853, from LL's
own hand.  Whilst he says' the size of cells in which workers are raised
never varies' I cannot find a size quoted anywhere.  [P74 of the Root
reprint of 1853 edition}.

In poor health, Langstroth passed over the The Hive and the Honeybee to
Charles Dadant in 1885, who re-wrote with a different structure.  The Abbe
Collin is reported to have calculated the number of cells per square
decimeter as 'almost 850, 530 for drones'.  [Quoted from para 251 of the
French edition 1896].

Bob has referred to para 217 of the 1913 edition of The Hive and Honeybee,
giving the number of cells as 27 per sq inch.  The second part of the para
requotes Abbe Collin as having measured 854 worker cells per square
decimeter in Paris in 1851, adding that Charles Dadant's own measurements
agreed.

Meanwhile in UK, Bevan's The Honeybee and its Management 1870 represents
Huber observation in detail , but gives the size of worker cells as 2 and
3/5ths lines.  Huber had been printed as 2 and 2/5ths, so either Bevan or
the English edition of Huber must be a misprint. [Anyone know which?]

Cheshire in Bees and Beekeeping 1886 p216 gives an idea of the variation in
size of bees at the time - 20 Carniolan workers weighed 66gms against 28gms
for 20 Cyprian workers.  'Natural worker comb seemed to vary between 30 and
27 cells per 6 inches [which I make 5.1 to 5.6 mm].

Cheshire gives the sizes of the earliest foundation:  Mehring plates  30.5
cells per 6 inches; Long's foundation  30; Raitt's 29; Flat bottomed  28;
and Original Root  27 - [which I make means Root was introducing 5.6mm in
the 1880's, the large end of the range of natural comb at the time.  IMHO
This large worker comb may well have been built by bees in late summer for
honey storage and not for brood, in which case Root was skewing the brood
nest ].

I do not have the mathematical skill to translate all these early references
into comparable mm figures.  I hope someone will still be awake after the
Xmas pud and would like to do that for us and post it back.


Robin Dartington











> I hope Ed is doing better Dee and thought I would give you and the 49 ers
> something to ponder.
> Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to the list!
> Sincerely,
> Bob Harrison
> Odessa, Missouri
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::