> > IMO, much of the old beekeeping literature is simply imaginative > > romantic fiction and has to be checked against present-day experience > For put comb sizes back to what were there pre-1900 into the early 1930s I presume you are talking about comb built on foundation? In North America? In domestic colonies? By specific strains of bees? And on specific sizes of foundation? if so, I am left trying to guess which one(s), and the relevance. > and much research/papers written today on larger sizes, might be said the > same thing of with again upgraded even more present-day doings. Present-day experience, in my mind, includes worldwide searches and examination and comparison of wild and domestic bees by hard-headed, highly trained and well-experienced researchers, who are supervised by rigourous scientists who have no particular ax to grind, and lots to gain by finding something novel. I am less inclined to include in this the writings of untrained and unsupervised amateur beekeepers, past or present, myself included, and no matter whether they are good friends and pretty smart, or not. It was top scientists working as teams who put a man on the Moon and brought him back, not a few Sunday mechanics writing articles for popular niche magazines or small circulation books. > On top of this I in a way also think seeing the difference in various > sizes used, you are also comparing apples to oranges. My comments are not meant to simply apply in relation to questions of cell sizes, although I understand that this one topic more important to you than any other. What I said applies IMO across the board, to all aspects of bee lore and presumed science, incuding -- if Adrian is correct, the sacred bee dance. To address your one concern, there seem to be some poorly-understood and poorly-explained effects from raising bees on foundation -- of any size -- and I appreciate that you have been instrumental in pointing that out, and that this is your one particular interest. I must also add, however I have problems accepting the theories and the history you submit, and the format of the supposed documentation. Nonetheless, you are, in my mind, correct in that the context and the underlying assumptions must be understood in interpreting *any* observations, past or present. My comments were directed towards the type of work or literature where the writer starts off with the conclusion, then massages or generates "facts" to fit. That flaw is most obvious in writings from before our time, but, as you pointed out, not limited to the past. There is a lot of junk passing for science out there. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---