> Allen, you just dont get it for all those people mentioned wrote
 > about smaller cells as common place and down into the 4.6mm to
 > 4.7mm and 4.8mm range as normal and published all around the
 > world. So seeing the smaller cells simply showed and still does
 > bees sized properly with Nature and not the AHB game then wanted.

That is the problem, Dee.  I _do_ get it and I am not as easily
fooled by BS as many no matter how often it is repeated.

Plus I am blunt enough -- some would say rude enough -- to point
out you that are BSing us and have been getting away with it for an
amazingly long time.

Of course, those historical people mentioned and many others saw a
range of cell sizes in natural comb. We all do.

That is not the point and you know it.

They were examining _natural_ comb, and the average worker cell
size reported has been above 5.0 mm at any time in recorded history
for EHB observed anywhere, but cell sizes in any sample and between
samples range considerably.

Foundation is a different matter.  _Foundation is not 'natural'_.
By its very intent, foundation imposes an unnatural fixed average
size on all cells drawn on it.  You will not see that uniformity
in wild colony's combs

Foundation is not natural and beekeeping on foundation is not
natural.

And that is especially true of forcing EHB onto 4.9 foundation.

             ***********************************************
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