Peter borst writes:
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..
(snip)
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]>>>
I wonder what all those old beekeepers who give 'five cells to the inch'
were trying to prove? I don't like speculation any more than you do, but
neither will I restrict 'credibility' to those with strings of letters after
their names. I'd very much like to run tests with control hives as well as
small cell, but with only a few hives at present the opportunity isn't going
to be there for a while; maybe someone else will do it first.
When I find, for instance, that the 1917 edition of the 'ABC & XYZ', p.
402, says:
'By far the larger portion of the cells in a hive will be found to
measure about five to the inch [about 5.1mm]. these are called worker
cells... This, of course, refers to natural comb built by the bees without
any comb foundation being supplied to them. Comb foundation is generally made
with cells of such size that the worker comb built upon it contains about 27
cells to the inch [just under 5.2mm].'
I want to know why the foundation being made then was slightly larger
than natural comb, why it is significantly larger now, why modern research is
showing cells in natural comb to be significantly larger than the old
measurements, and what effect it has all had on the bees. The answers must be
out there somewhere.
Regards,
Robert Brenchley
[log in to unmask]
Birmingham, UK.
|
