Hi,

 > Was the reason for the belief in the benefit of small cell based on  
the belief that Africanized bees had fewer mites because of their  
smaller cell size?
 >

No, it was based on the fact that bees were at the time being kept on  
unnaturally larger cells than was in the past. Natural or normal cell  
size for worker brood, before they were artificially enlarged by  
unwitting beekeepers, was in the range of  4.6 mm to 5.1 mm. 4.8 mm to  
4.9 mm being mid range is the reason for using 4.9 mm foundation or  
some just simply use foundation-less frames or plain wax starter  
strips. Small cell is not based on Africanized bees. This web site  
explains it well.
Natural Cell Size, small cell bees, small cell beekeeping, regression,  
natural beekeeping, Bush Bees, foundationless frames, organic beekeeping

 > Maybe we should have looked at the original host for varroa ;the  
small Asian hive bee.
 >

This has been done by some using SCB, I am sure that others have  
looked at this also. I do not remember exactly what was discovered or  
discussed but I am sure that others can.

 >  I wonder if "small cell" is more nearly approaching the size of  
Apis Cerane drone cells. If this is the case it could account for the  
preference of varroa for the smaller cell size.
 >

This is not what was going on in the experiment. If you want to know  
more of an explanation for this there was an in depth discussion on  
the organicbeekeepers list a couple of months ago.
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/

God Bless,

Keith Malone
The Great State, The Last Frontier

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************