Peter Borst writes:

<<When someone says 5 cells to the inch, what is the level of accuracy?
Were it 4.9 or 5.1 cells to the inch, would they round it to 5? When
someone writes 5.01 mm, they are signalling a high level of accuracy,
but Root refers to 5 to the inch, and 3 1/2 to the inch, indicating a
rather broad brush -- not very subtle differences.>>

Perhaps not all that broad. The 1917 ABC & XYZ discusses the variation in
cell size which can be 'shown by careful measurement', and differentiates
between natural comb, at 28 13/15 cells to the square inch, and comb built on
foundation, at 27 per square inch. Wedmore (1946) differentiates between
foundation measuring 'five cells per inch' and that measuring 4 3/4. I think
the fact that they made these distinctions indicates that their measurements
were more accurate than you suggest; the difference between 4.9 and 5.4 is
greater than this.

Could there be a piece of old comb preserved in some museum somewhere? Has
anyone tried to find out? Given the Victorians' habit of preserving all sorts
of specimens, it would almost seem surprising if there's nothing sitting in a
bottle in a back room somewhere.




Regards,

Robert Brenchley
[log in to unmask]
Birmingham UK