12 Bulletin 54. 



In the preceding table all the weights obtained from the 

 pieces of comb are given. 



The first fifteen examples in the table are of worker comb as 

 built by the beps in the natural way. The three following are 

 naturally built drone comb. 



The extra thin foundation weighed but 3.60 grains to the 

 square inch, or 13.50 square feet to the pound, and had very slight 

 cell walls. It is shown at I of Plate 2 in cross section. 



The foundation listed as "Thin Super (A)" weighed almost 

 exactly four grains to the square inch, or a triflie more than twelve 

 square feet to the pound, and was rather firm in texture. It is 

 shown in cross section aXj of Plate 2. 



That listed as ' Thin Super (B)" was of the same weight as the 

 preceding, but of softer texture and had more wax in the mid- 

 rib and less, almost none, in the short walls. It is shown in cross 

 section at/, Plate 2. 



Tne "1898" deep-cell foundation is the kind shown at d of 

 Plate 4. It ran about 5.46 grains to the square inch, or approxi- 

 mately, nine square feet to the pound. 



The "1899" deep-cell foundation is that shown in Figure ^^ of 

 Plate 4, and it weighed 5.10 grains to the square inch or 9.53 

 square feet to the pound. 



The medium brood foundation weighed 8.40 grains to the 

 square inch, or 5.80 square feet to the pound. It is shown at c of 

 Plate 2. 



The very heavy foundation averaged 11 grains to the square 

 inch, or 4.42 square feet to the pound, and is shown at a, Plate 2. 



The thickness of the comb samples in each case is given in the 

 second column in the table, and is stated in inches and hundredths. 



The third column gives the weights in grains to the square 

 inch of the samples used, and is the sum of the weights in columns 

 four and five, which give the weights of the midribs and the cell 

 walls respectively. 



The column at the right gives the number of square feet of 

 each sample of comb that would be required to weigh one pound. 



Each sample was of whole comb, i. e., comb drawn to a greater 

 or less thickness but not capped, so that the cells were complete as 

 built. 



It would have been better, or at least easier, to compare sam- 

 ples of comb of the same thickm ss ; but comb varies so much in 

 this respect that it was found impossible to do so with the samples 

 at hand in the experimental apiary, and the evidence desired seems 

 to be fairly ample in the data obtained and given in the preceding 

 table. 



First, I will call attention to the fact that the three samples 

 of drone comb, varying between .88 and .93 of an inch in thickness, 



