Apiary Experiments. 
13 
are considerably heavier than samples of natural worker comb of 
approximately the same thickness. 
The sample of comb 1.25 inches thick on extra thin super 
foundation is but .10 of a grain heavier than the average of the two 
samples of natural comb of the same thickness. The sample 1.22 
inches thick is fully as light in proportion to its thickness. The 
two thinner comb samples on this foundation do not compare quite 
as favorably with the natural. 
The thickest sample of natural comb measured 1.37 inches, and 
weighed 13 grains to the square inch. No sample on artificial foun¬ 
dation as thick weighed so little, while one sample 1.25 inches thick 
on thin super foundation (A) weighed the same. All samples over 
.75 of an inch thick on medium brood and very heavy foundations 
weighed from about one-fourth to two-thirds heavier, or from 16.50 
to 19.50 grains to the square inch. The sample 1.13 inches thick 
on deep-cell foundation put out in 1898 exceeds in weight the 
thickest sample of natural comb by 1.9 grains to the square inch. 
The samples of natural comb 1.34 and 1.33 of an inch thick are 
also exceeded in weight by the same thinner samples of comb on 
artificial foundations just mentioned. 
The heavier sample of natural comb measuring 1.25 inches 
thick is exceeded in lightness by one sample of comb on thin super 
foundation of the same thickness, while the other sample of the 
latter is heavier than the natural. 
Tne two thickest samples of comb on “1898” deep-cell founda¬ 
tion average one-seventeenth thicker than the thickest sample of 
natural comb, but their weights average more than one-fourth 
heavier than those of the latter. Their comparsion with the next 
two samples of worker comb would be still less favorable to the foun¬ 
dation. 
The sample of natural comb measuring 1.13 inches thick seems 
not to be unusually light, as the sample 1.15 thick weighed no 
more; the one that was 1.18 thick hardly exceeded it, and the one 
1.20 thick weighed even less. Comparing this comb with the sam¬ 
ple of the same thickness on the “1898” deep-cell foundation, we find 
the latter is heavier than the former by more than one-half the 
weight of the natural comb. In other words, it is heavier than the 
natural comb by almost exactly the weight of the deep-cell founda¬ 
tion. The two samples of comb on this foundation that are .60 and 
.56 of an inch thick respectively are as heavy or heavier than any 
of the samples of natural worker comb measuring from 1.20 inches 
in thickness down. 
The “1899” deep-cell foundation produced a comb much nearer 
the natural in lightness. Comparing the sample 1.50 inches thick with 
the natural sample 1.37 thick, we see there is but 1.50 grains differ¬ 
ence in weight, which would be fully accounted for by the greater 
