Note:  PLEASE, EVERYONE precede ALL quotes with a carat (">") for clarity.  Quotes of quotes, when appropriate get an additional carat ("> >").  

This politeness is a 'net email convention of long standing and important for understanding -- and for not making it seem that you are not arguing with yourself :)
---

> > The size of the cells in the side combs and the central comb varies somewhat and depends on the history of the swarm and other factors which are not completely understood. Many of us suspect there is a strong element of randomness and coincidence involved. 

> In my top bar hive, which has the entrance at one end so the combs are the 'warm way', average cell size is smaller in the middle of the colony than towards the front or the rear. There is also a change of size across each comb with smaller ones in the middle and larger on the periphery.  Drawn on a graph it shows a shallow inverted bell curve front to back which suggests that it is not entirely random.

I was discussing *natural* comb, not managed comb built under constraints imposed by beekeepers and thinking of cavities which are typically deeper than beekeepers offer.  

Moreover, natural nests which are long established and occupied by multiple swarms over time take on interesting randomness due to mouse and other damage and building and rebuilding.  

Are the combs built under the influence of Aganetha Dyck  -- http://members.shaw.ca/ahtenaga/dibrandt.pdf --  considered to be natural combs under the definition you are using?  Why?  Why not?

(For further study material, Google “Aganetha Dyck”

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm