From: "Allen Dick" <allend@internode.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:12:50 -0700
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: cell size measurement

> Could you re-phrase this in simple sentences totalling 25 words or less
please?

Gladly. It is always a good exercise to try to get to the essence.

Thirteen words will suffice. Brevity, I have heard, is the soul of wit.

--- begin question ---

When good, unambiguous, linear measurements are available, why give credence to questionable guesses?

--- end question ---

> Much of the older literature does not use linear measure,
> but the measures they do use are ambiguous.

If this is true, it is sad. Speculation on the meaning of writings, and
speculation as to the mathematical abilities of writers is perhaps an
interesting pastime, but, sadly, little credence can be given to the results
of such speculation. Speculation is only speculation. When the results of
speculation eclipse fact, it becomes unhealthy speculation.

Moreover, if there are several possible interpretations from writings, and
one such result correlates with clearly reported known measured facts, and
the others do not, then the congruent result *must* be chosen, if any. On
the other path lies chaos and madness.

There is no need to go to great lengths to prove that domesticated honey
bees have (and do) build combs down into the range below 5.0mm. Eric quoted one respectable supporting document.

What is truly interesting and worth careful consideration is the
implications of imposing *any* fixed and uniform size of cells on any
particular population of bees. This occurs with the use of any foundation.

People went decades, almost a century, believing that foundation is benign
and that ample sizes are optimal for cells, both to accommodate the size
full range of bees that are managed, and also to allow bees to reach the
maximum size that their genetics allow. Now this is brought into question
and some efforts are underway to go to an opposite extreme, again using
foundation.

allen