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 bees 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 l of Plate 2 in cross section. 
The foundation listed as “Thin Super (A)” weighed almost 
exactly four grains to the square inch, or a trifle more than twelve 
square feet to the pound, and was rather firm in texture. It is 
shown in cross section at j 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. 
The “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 i3 that shown in Figure g 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 tach 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 thickness; 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, 
