I was cleaning up this morning and found what I found to be a most
interesting post from BioBee on my desktop (where I have kept it for
reference). I will quote it at the bottom of this post and I'll be very
interested in your comments Peter, since you likely have good access to
source documents:
Here is a little of our previous discussion on this subject for context:
> > >* The EHB natural range reportedly went as low as 4.9 mm, although 4.9
> > > was at the extreme low end of the range observed...
> > I think they are important. Crane gives the range of European honey
> > bees as 5.1 to 5.5 and the median at 5.3...
> I went through a lot of stuff on BioBee
[log in to unmask]
> and came away less convinced of the range given above and more
> willing to give some credence to the numbers I gave.
--- Begin BioBee Post Quote ---
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Erik Osterlund <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:57:37 +0100
Subject: [BioBee] Re: Good News, Bad news
Hi Chris
Good you brought up Cowan. He is very important for history here. I would
say one of the most important documents we have, if not the most important.
Funny thing about year for first edition. Looked in the book when visiting
Dadants in Hamilton in November lately. First edition 1890, second 1904.
Pages 179 to 182 are of special interest concerning cell sizes. 2.11 inches
for 10 cells linear, makes about 5.36 mm per cell at the most. 1.86 as the
smallest makes 4.73 mm per cell. So your figures are good here for
converting square inch figure then.
(T)he interesting thing with this book is that Cowan seems to be the only
one
in history that far back that made such a big study on different bees, says
himself, Amm from England, Carniolans from Switzerland, Italians from
Italy, Canadian and American bees and the range from all these measurings
the above. He measured on three different spots on each comb measured and
in all three directions over the parallel sides of the cells and at least
10 cells in a row. On several frames from each colony measured. Now the
important facts that he mentioned but that has been ignored through history
afterwards almost totally for that the natural cell size varies quite a lot
in one and the same colony and even on the same frame. And totally for the
fact that cell size always was smallest in the centre of the nest where the
brood is. Also ignored is that the cell size of the first foundation made
was an AVERAGE cell size. That was what he also mentioned in an Bee World
article in the 30th. That first cell size is the famous so called 900
foundation. Which many today say is the same as 5.05-5.1 mm per cell. Now
if this is correct it means that a big part of the brood always was born in
cell with cell sizes LESS then that size. So the enlarging of the BROOD
cell size began already with the first foundation coming into use.
Remarkable to say the least. And all discussion later on is always about
which cell size is the best and correct, thus not even being aware of the
range of different cell sizes normally in one and the same colony. You can
randomly take a piece of comb, measure it and not being aware of what you
have measured at all, for what is being normal for BROOD. So with the first
foundation a big part of the workerforce just disappeared, that one born in
cell sizes smaller than 5.05-5.1, which was the biggest part. Cowan
mentioned two frames of Amm as example, one frame with cell sizes ranging
between 4.95 and 5.34, the other between 4.90 and 5.15. I think this
variation, with the concentration on brood cell sizes on the small side, is
there to give a still greater varied worker force, besides outcrossing
opposite to inbreeding and mating to many drones, to be able to cope with
all these things that meet the bees, to survive and thrive.
Erik
At 16.01 -0500 01-12-27, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>I read in the 1924 edition of the British Bee-keeper's Guide Book by T.W.
>Cowan first published in 1881 that honey comb has 28.87 worker cells to the
>square inch.
>I multiplied this by 25.4 to convert to metric (why
>are we doing this in metric?) and got the answer 4.715 and a bit
millimetres.
--- End BioBee Quote ---
allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/
|
