I have been following this thread with a degree of amusement until now. I must confess some opinions expressed by "experts" that I
previously held in high regard have prompted me to stop smiling. Have you all gone raving mad? Have you actually looked at combs
and foundation, and if so considered the possibility that you are looking for an optical illusion? There is no middle comb that
differs from all the others!! Murray McGregor is absolutely right, his description which I quote here describes the real
situation:-

"... The thing I have problems with, and have never seen,
is the concept of the 'special middle comb'. I need to see one of these
with my own eyes to believe it, as, except by consumption of wax in very
large amounts relative to the norm, it is geometrically impossible. The
imprint you see is actually the base of the side walls of the cells on
the other side of the comb and in a situation where the cells are one
third staggered relative to each other you are always going to get this
reversing pattern. Only by constructing a midrib of exceptional
thickness and then the Y being an imprint in the solid material could
you possibly get a situation where you have Y's with the same
orientation on both sides."

The one thing that bees never do, is draw cells (of any size) with convex bases. This is what they would have to do in order to
use foundation to create a "Housel" centre frame. Dee claims to have reaaranged 35,000 frames in order to "correct"
misspositioning relative to the "Housel" concept. Perhaps she would have been better off spending the time reading a famous
childrens story about a monarch and his new clothes and how much these impressed his loyal subjects!

Peter Detchon
(in Western Australia where the spring honey flow is finishing, the drought has all but eliminated any further prospects for the
season, and honey prices are at long last bearing a realistic comparison to the cost of production!)