> >> We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size
> >> significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large
> >> foundation

> Okay, it appears that we agree on this one now, since Mark Otts went and
> posted excerpts from some of the articles that are on the web site showing a
> definite and purposefully increase in cell size. You made no negative
> comment about it nor challenged it so I hope this is a point we might agree
> on.

Actually I did start to write a reply to Mark, but it got too detailed and I
have not yet finished.  I do have a life and this topic -- as bob has aptly
guessed -- fills me and many others with great ennui.

BTW, Mark's article was very good.  It was well written, factual, had a good
tone, was nicely formatted with good white space between thoughts to give my
poor moderator's eye a much needed rest when skimming through. It was an oasis
of relief in a desert of densely written, badly formatted, rambling, personal
and badly reasoned posts on this particular topic and I sure hope he -- and
others like him -- write much more often to this list. (Of course your work has
those same positive characteristics, too and is appreciated).

Maybe I'll deal more with the actual content of his post later.  One thing I
have noticed is that the proponents of this particular theory have boundless and
an endless supply of words and energy and keep me busy trying to address all the
little fallacies and unsupported assumptions that they are capable of
generating.  It is 3:55 AM and I am sitting here writing a rebuttal to a topic
that I find extremely slippery and somewhat boring and wondering if I am a
masochist.

I think not.  I admit to have benefited from this discussion, even if I balk at
going along with you all under 5.2 mm because talking about this has drawn my
attention to how wasteful in brood chamber volume some of the 'brood' comb
foundation on the market is.  I prefer to run singles, and with large cells, the
standard brood chamber which was designed to hold all the brood a good queen can
make, will not and still have room for a bit of feed.  With Pierco, at 5.25 mm
and less bar area, it will.

What I did and do agree on in this debate is that there seems to be some
evidence that some individual bees become *very slightly* larger when raised in
cells larger than their sisters would naturally make.

I seem to recall that Grout gave <2% and others gave up to 5% larger
measurements in *some* *linear* dimensions.  I am not totally convinced that
that particular evidence is all that good, or that the increase is all that
significant, but it seems to be reasonable that using a larger cell could allow
the individual bee to be as large as it might naturally tend to be -- but no
larger, whereas sufficiently smaller cells could reduce the size of all bees,
much as binding the feet of Chinese noblewomen kept their feet from fully
developing.

We are talking about two defend things here:

* raising bees in cells that do not constrict them and
* raising bees in cells that do constrict them.

Where the crossover occurs is in debate.

Think of the problems one has choosing shoes.  There are shoes that are too big
and don't work well, shoes that fit perfectly, and shoes that pinch and distort
developing feet. I should think that is a good analogy for brood cells.

In the first case above, the bees will not keep getting bigger each generation,
they are merely allowed to express their full genetic capability, subject only
to other environmental factors.  In the second, we are limiting development to a
specific size -- as far as I can see, at least.  What the cut-off point is under
scrutiny here and it may not be the same for all the bees we keep.

> >> The quality were NOT heritable/hereditary so that a swarm from a beehive
> >> with cells of 700 in freedom goes back to 734 cells and after that
> >> goes back to 835 to 870 cells

That such changes are NOT heritary is the critical point that caused me indicate
agreement was the statement.  This is key.  The whole retrogression thing has
had connotations of permanent genetic change in bees being caused by experience,
which is a red flag for many of us.

The second point that I agreed with is that the bees naturally go to an 835 to
870 cell size.  To me that is the obvious normal size I see around me when I
look, so concurring is not at all difficult.  But you are going to need strong
horses or good arguments to drag me farther than that.

Another critical thing here is that I don't think there was a claim made in the
quote about a significant change of size in the bees involved.  The quote was
about adaptation to construction of different sizes of *cells*.  Is it possible
that the bees on average remain about the same size when inhabiting cells in the
range of 5.2 to 5.7?

What is truly interesting is the process of adaptation from 5.7 to 5.2 (I.e.
from a too large size to just right).  The assumption has thus far been made
that the adaptation needing time (if true) is due to the size of the bees extant
in the colony.  Ain't necessarily so.  Maybe it is a learning curve?

Below 5.2, or some other number, I think that we must be looking at constriction
of the developing bee and/or a reduction in size of the bee.  I am reasonably
sure that by the time we get down to 4.9 mm we are experiencing this for most
familiar genotypes other than AHB.  Maybe not.  I think it is one of the several
genuinely interesting questions in this investigation that has proceeded now for
over a century without final resolution.  I suspect that the correct questions
have not been addressed until now.

> > Using the chart at
> > http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, these
> > numbers translate to about 5.75 mm, 7.4 mm, and 5.25 to 5.15 mm
> > respectively.  The last numbers are what I consider to be the natural size

> The quote above, from the book in Dutch, makes it clear that the bee can not
> go from large to small in one giant step (regression).

I am with you -- albeit with reservations -- so far.  Inasmuch as I don't think
that the bees are much, if any, increased or reduced in size when raised in
cells in this size range, I doubt they have a big step to take.

However it is intriguing -- and not entirely illogical -- to hear that when
having been on larger comb, they take some time to revert to making normal comb.
That bears further study.  Of course it does not prove the bees in question are
larger, it could prove the bees seem to remember the cell size they were on
previously for some time -- if it proves anything.

FWIW, I have no experience (that I know of) with 5.7 mm foundation, so the
extreme cases do not affect me.  I was curious about the timeframe of the
adjustment and asked for more info in a form I can read, but have not had it
laid in front of me.

> I don't think we can assume that this quote is complete. It may even go
> on to say yet another higher number of cells, I don't know. It doesn't
> really matter for this point. Only that there is a step down in size by
> the bee when given the freedom to do so. It also tells us that the bee,
> if left to its own, will regress itself down to a size that is "natural."

You write, "...may even go on to say yet another higher number of cells".  I am
sure that if the text did say what you seem to want it to say -- rather than
what it actually does say -- the writer would have quoted it here.  He did not.
This type of leap drives me  crazy.  Logic flies out the window if we allow
this, and we go to fantasy. This has been a feature of the whole Lusby thing.
We have some apparently solid facts, then a plethora of speculation -- some of
which is presented as fact rather than what it is -- pure and wishful fantasy.

There is no justification for reading things into plain honest text that is set
before us.  That merely muddies the water in this debate and keeps many
knowledgeable people (who are thus obviously much wiser than me) out of it, and
as far away from it as they can get.

> Nature goes for small.  In
> nature, no one gives the bees new wax after a few years so combs become used
> and cells get smaller from many rounds of brood rearing, and smaller drones
> fly faster and catch the virgins first. So you get selection for smallness.
> I assume we also agree on this point?

Not even a little bit.  Frankly, at this point, I don't think we are in Kansas
any more.  I'm going to need lots of proof here.

> It appears we can then narrow down our differences to just "what I consider
> to be the natural size."

Maybe.   The phrase, "the natural size" worries me. there are too many
assumptions for me hidden it.  For one thing if I only had a choice of 'too
large' or 'too small' when buying clothes, guess which one I would take.

>I think here is where we differ with the "interpretation" of the literature.

"interpretation" is the word.  I just read the literature I come across, and
think it means exactly what it says, but I notice others "interpret" the
readings selectively and apparently with some prejudice.  Language can be
imprecise and sometimes the meaning of a particular passage is indeterminate.
In such cases no conclusion can be reached. Guessing is just that: guessing, and
any conclusions that come from such expeditions into supposition are highly
suspect.

> > worker comb measures very nearly five cells to the inch on an average.  Some
> > specimens average a little larger, and some a little smaller;
>
> One should note that Root is making reference to "average" in all three
> examples. The larger and smaller cells are not looked at as being unusual,
> but still average. Five cells to the inch gives the measurement of a single
> cell, 5.1 mm. Is an average smaller size 5.0 - 4.9? Is an average larger
> size 5.2 - 5.3? One would have to speculate here as it's not stated in this
> reference.

I would not speculate, but stick to what is written and stop right there.
Beyond that point lies chaos and confusion.  The word 'average' is a notoriously
imprecise word and refers to several different ideas.  The only thing they have
in common is that in all cases, there *may* be larger and smaller specimens, but
we know nothing about the range or nature of the variation without more data.

Moreover, the samples may not even be from only one population.  If they are
not, then the idea of averaging is entirely and dangerously meaningless.  To try
to guess takes us into fantasy again.  We must find solid evidence and examine
real data.

We do not *know* what he was actually looking at; we are trying to figure that
out. We *think* that perhaps we know, but to guess, and then use that guess to
prove our point is circular.  That is what worries me about this debate: I think
many of the small cell enthusiasts are drinking their own bath water.

What we do know and what was omitted from the my quote this time was the
important fact that Root believed his 5.1 mm foundation to be denser that the
natural comb he had inspected and that later on he went to 5.2 mm comb, which is
slightly less dense and is IMO, close to the size most of my bees want.

FWIW, If *I* had to guess here, I would make a conservative guess that maybe he
had found the 5.1 comb to be a bit too small, especially after repeated use, and
had to go larger a smidgeon to the proper natural size that bees specify
whenever I ask them.  But I won't speculate.  I simply do not know.

> I also note here that in 1898, a correction from Thos. Wm. Cowan was given
> to Mr. Root about his use of "average." I quote:
>
> ..."Then I go on, "We say 'average,' because considerable variation
> exists in different parts of the same comb, as both Reaumur and Huber
> found." I then go on to summarize the large number of measurements I took;
> and if you will read the details you will see what a variation there is. 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."

> Again, we are still talking average. And within the average size is a range
> that the bee will use. 2.11 inches to 1.86 inches.

I am not sure what you mean by 'the bee'.  Obviously we can safely assume some
bees, but it is not safe to assume all bees, or even most bees.  I do not know
in what region of the world the samples were taken, what type of bee or bees is
involved, and whether each sample is the comb found in the whole brood area --
or part -- of one hive or of many.

He says very definitely, " I found the greatest aggregate diameters of any
one series of ten cells to amount to 2.11 inches" and adds, for clarity and
emphasis, "which you see makes them considerably larger than 1/5 inch".
"Greatest aggregate" means  that the largest group of samples fell close that
measure.  He neglects to mention the extreme largest measurements, since he is
apparently concerned with Root's choice of a small measurement as Root's
'average' size.  What he was apparently trying to prove to Root was -- IMO --
that Root was choosing too small an average size.

He then adds, to be completely candid, "On the other hand, the least came to
1.86, which makes them smaller".  Apparently he did at least one sample of the
36 that were that size. But this was the extreme on the small side.  He does not
mention the extreme on the large end. He was concerned with selecting the size
which had the largest number of samples nearby and thus preferred typical over
'average'.  We are not aware of the circumstances surrounding the aberrant
small -- or large -- comb in his samples.

There is a danger that several distinct populations of bees were being sampled
and perhaps are being sampled even today.  IF this is true, the whole concept of
averaging, or even the idea of imposing a common size of foundation on them all
may be flawed.

Moreover, when dealing with two separate populations and deciding to force a
common cell size, which is less harmful: taking the larger mean or the smaller
mean?  By imposing the smaller measure, would we be selecting for one population
that can tolerate the limitations of the comb over the other which cannot -- and
completely misinterpreting what is going on?

> That's 5.36 mm to 4.72
> mm. 4.9 is in this natural (average) range, is it not? What the Lusby's have
> done by using the 4.9 cell size is to help the bees to use one of their
> smaller natural sizes to be able to deal with the mite on their own without
> the use of any chemicals. All the numbers are out there for all to read and
> I don't think I'm off base in my reading of these articles. I know you think
> the same about your interpretation. We should realize, though, that what you
> and I are talking about is just theory. A matter of opinion and
> interpretation. What can't be overlooked is reality. The Lusby's are *in*
> reality, but have offered their theory as to how it works.

We have always agreed that Lusbys may be successful.  We have never agreed on
why.

> We now have the tool (4.9 foundation) to test this theory. One can stay in
> theory and debate indefinitely, or, pick up some 4.9 foundation and see what
> reality is. People will believe reality over theory.

Precisely.  I looked to see how your experiment came out, I gather it failed?

The one thing is that success is not going to prove the theory.

Success can prove the *process*, but proving the theory will require better
observation and analysis than has taken place thus far.  Better questions must
be asked (see above) and answered before the theory can have any respectability.

> > Back to the quote again: I gather that immediately after removal from the
> > monster foundation combs, in the quote they go to 7.4, and then in a
> > generation or so, to 5.2 and then stay there, according to this source?
>
> The portion of the quote is all I have. Don't know what follows. Perhaps one
> of our European friends could find this book and let us know.

I hope so.  I am very interested in this and it has all kinds of implications if
the bees remember a comb size and it is not hardwired in.

I have always found the term retrogression repugnant and full of all kinds of
inappropriate connotations.  Maybe "Training" bees to use smaller cells is a
better term.

Mind blowing, isn't it?

allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served...