Hello Bob -

>> Have I missed somehow the proof that EHB used 4.9 before foundation.
>
> Safe ground Allen!  You know the small cell camp can not prove 4.9mm was the
> original size. I believe the *five cells to the inch* to BE a average
> number. Some could have been smaller and some larger. Root and others tried
> to give a simple answer when a very exact measurement would have solved the
> mystery. Also a explanation of the way they measured.

If we are going to accept Root's early observation, that *five cells to the
inch* was an average, as being correct (we assume he wasn't lying here),
then we must also accept with equal correctness what Cowan wrote in reply to
Root:

"You say, "It has been said over and over again in bee-books and
bee-journals, that there are five cells of worker comb to the inch, so that
we have come to believe it;'' also that Cook is the only authority you have
run across who says worker-cells are a little more than 1/5 inch; but in my
book you will find that, out of 36 measurements that were taken, I found the
greatest aggregate diameters of any one series of ten cells to amount to
2.11 inches, which you see makes them considerably larger than 1/5 inch. On
the other hand, the least came to 1.86, which makes them smaller."

(http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/bcapr1898.htm)

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 have always
seen 4.9 as a size that is well within the normal sizes found in bees of
that time. That is good enough for me. Now the more important issue is
getting on with finding out why bees of this size are able to coexist with
varroa and do it all over the country.

Regards,
Barry