Dear Allen,
You quoted:
>Looked in the book when visiting Dadants in Hamilton in November
>lately. First edition 1890, second 1904.

Please supply the title and I will look up the original references. I
assume this is it (below), but the E. F. Phillips Beekeeping Library
has 33 books by T. W. Cowan

>Cowan, T. W. (Thomas William), 1840-1926.
>The honey bee: its natural history, anatomy, and physiology.
>London, Houlston [1890]
>Location: Mann Library Special Collections

Comments:

I guess I am just allergic to the conjecturing that is associated
with this topic. I find the modern sources to eminently credible, as
having no particular axe to grind. I don't see how the theory can be
proved or disproved, given the lack of interest (in proving or
disproving it) on either side. I also don't think it makes any
difference.

My sole objection is that the small size theory is not credible nor
are its proponents.. But the following statement is utterly
uninformed:

>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.


The first part, where he says that cell size variation *is there* to
give a varied work force... this is completely speculative. Variation
in cell size is mostly likely due to the fact that bees are not
working with rulers and compasses, they are making cells about the
size they need to be. A little larger, a little smaller, it doesn't
much matter.

The part about outcrossing, why is that in this sentence? He changes
canoes in midstream. Inbreeding in bees is a very negative thing,
leading to all sorts of problems, and the honey bee has developed a
sophisticated mechanism to avoid it, but that has little to do with
cell size.

When looking at sources, I am concerned foremost about credibility,
because anyone can say anything. I give high credibility to Spivak,
and Taber, because they measured cells without having anything to
prove. They just wanted to *find out*.
--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>