> We see Cowan finding cells as large as 2.11" (5.3mm) and as small as 1.86"
> (4.7mm). All of these falling in the category of 'average.'

I think that is closer to 5.4 mm than 5.3, making the mean to be over 5, but I
get your point.

> I have always seen 4.9 as a size that is well within the normal sizes found in
bees of
> that time. That is good enough for me.

Just because it is within the normal range does not mean that downsizing will
not have deleterious effects on that portion of the population that normally
uses the upper end of the range.  Procrustes, as I recall had a solution that
seems to me somewhat analogous.  Visit
www.mythweb.com/teachers/why/basics/procrustes.html

> Now the more important issue is getting on with finding out why bees of this
size
> are able to coexist with varroa

This true.

> and do it all over the country.

AFAIK, this remains to be proven, as does the question of what, if any,
undesirable effects may accompany this management.

I am glad to see that the investigations continue and hope that the results a
provide at least one more piece of the puzzle of reducing our dependence on
chemical solutions to our bee pest and disease problems.

allen