Hello Dave and All,

Dave wrote:
I for one, do not "know" the answers, and despite the protestations that existing theory is sound and complete, I do not think anyone on this planet yet understands the complexity of this subject.

Beekeepers are full of theories. 
 I do not see  this discussion as complex.  Many of the facts needed to come to a logical conclusion are missing. 
 The biggest fact missing is cell size from a hundred years ago.  When I looked into cell size the  oldest foundation I found which could be looked at and measured was the Dadant *900* foundation.  Most would put the *900* foundation a tad larger than 5.0mm but smaller than 5.1mm.  About as exact as I could get. 
Proper  testing  with controls is missing .with the 4.9mm theory so far . 
People are asking us to accept their theories at face value.  Might work at a bee meeting but will not work on Bee-L. 
Dr. Jaycox found cell size hard to study. Dr. Jaycox came to the conclusion worker cells could be found 17% bigger  and smaller than normal. Sadly I have NEVER been able to find in print the size Dr. Jaycox considered normal.  I picked up another old Jaycox book last month but have not had time to read yet. Maybe I will finally find out what size Dr. jaycox considered the *natural comb cell size*.
 
On most frames  one beekeeper can take  a measurement and say the section he has measured is say 5.1mm. Another can pick another location on the same frame and come up with 5.2mm. Take another measurement in another location you will find 5.3mm and  so on.

Interesting facts:
Perfectly normal workers have emerged from fertilized eggs laid in drone cells. 

  I have seen  drones squeeze out of unfertilized eggs laid in worker cells.

Barry Seargent of South Africa reports varroa reproduces in 4.9mm cell size.

What is *natural comb cell size*  ?  Subject of all these small cell size posts.

One size in my opinion would not be correct.

 A range   of size would be correct in my opinion but  what range?

Sincerely,
Bob Harrison