Allen -

>> We see Cowan finding cells as large as 2.11" (5.3mm) and as small as 1.86"
>> (4.7mm). All of these falling in the category of 'average.'
>
> I think that is closer to 5.4 mm than 5.3, making the mean to be over 5, but I
> get your point.

I stand corrected, 5.4 IS closer as the exact is 53.59mm.

> Just because it is within the normal range does not mean that downsizing will
> not have deleterious effects on that portion of the population that normally
> uses the upper end of the range.  Procrustes, as I recall had a solution that
> seems to me somewhat analogous.  Visit
> www.mythweb.com/teachers/why/basics/procrustes.html

The big difference here is that no one is suggesting 'chopping off the legs'
of the bee if it doesn't fit the cell. If a bee doesn't like the fit, it
won't build the cell. How is using 4.9 size foundation any different than
you or anyone else using their size? Any beekeeper who uses foundation is
discriminating then. If you are using 5.2mm foundation in your hives, aren't
you as equally concerned about the deleterious effects this may be having on
those bees that fall out of your selected size? If so, why haven't you
stopped using the single cell size foundation and gone to letting the bees
draw their own comb, that would include all the sizes?

While I understand the point you are trying to make, the fact that bees have
been handling foundation for over 100 years should have some bearing on
this. When bees want to build drone cells, they will do it regardless of the
worker cell size. I just don't see this as a big issue.

>> and do it all over the country.
>
> AFAIK, this remains to be proven, as does the question of what, if any,
> undesirable effects may accompany this management.

Poor wording on my part. I meant to say "and to be able to do it..." It does
need to be proven, it is in the process of having some things proven, and so
far the biggest undesirable effect is that it requires a lot of work.

Regards,
Barry