Peter Borst wrote:
>Well, looking at Reaumur's figures, I deduced that he must have done what
>we do, measure ten cells and divide by ten.  He got 2 and 2 twelfths
>inches for ten, which I would represent as 2.17".  If this is divided by
>ten, I would get .217".

        Until I'm given some indication of its variance, I have no opinion
on whether the 7 is significant.


>Measuring my own natural comb, I got 2 and one eighth inches per ten, or
>2.125" which I would represent as .213" per cell.  How else can you show
>that these two figures are different (which they are)?

        Sorry, but what this list has been shown does not establish they're
really different.


>I submit that this *was* done, that the figure was often rounded to .2"
>and that may account for the difference in the statements made by writers
>from the 1800s.

        sounds reasonable to me; some of those old fellas had a better
grasp of significant figs than the modern kompuwankers.


>Of course, Reaumur was wrong when he said the number was invariable.  That
>is why some writers (Crane) do not refer to the mean but rather, the range.

        I'm gratified to find myself in agreement with top expert Crane.


> But rather than pick apart the work of others, why don't you *add*
>something to the discussion?

        You can rely on me to do so, if ever I get involved in such
measurements of cells.  Meanwhile, I am trying to prevent disputes over
differences which may be more apparent than real.  This is not 'picking
apart' but assisting clear discussion.  (Several have indicated to me
off-list that they appreciate this.)

R