given space; they become, therefore, necessarily hexagons by reciprocal compression. In like manner, every bee seeks to occupy the greatest possible room in a given space; it is therefore necessary here also, since the body of the bee is cylindrical, that their cells should be cylindrical, by reason of the same reciprocal compression."
To this reasoning it may be answered, that there is no analogy between the cases. A hive without comb, as Lombard argues, is not above one-fourth filled with bees; and there is no cover, as in the case of the vessel, to keep the mass together. To make the cases perfectly similar, and fit subjects of comparison, the vessel with water ought to be filled but to the extent of one-fourth; and in that case, the cylindrical seeds will not be converted into hexagons. Besides, the cells at the extremities of the combs, though not so deep as those at the centre, are as exactly hexagonal in their forms. Now, if hexagons are formed by the reciprocal impression of the bodies of the bees against each other, how does it happen that the cells at the extremities, which are not attached to the sides or bottom of the hive, and where, consequently, there can be no reciprocal compression, should yet be as perfect hexagons as the rest? And, not to dwell on other proofs adduced by Lombard and other writers, of the utter insignificancy of this naturalist's theory—the cells have not all the same figure, the same dimensions, depth, and diameter, which they would necessarily have, if they had been produced merely by reciprocal compression. No;
