Skwim
Veteran Member
My reference to "accident" was from the bee's perspective. However, I'll go along with necessity, but not with your notion of collapse. Speaking strictly from the actual necessities of structural comb strength, triangle and square shapes would suffice equally as well.I would amend and say it's not "by accident". It's out of necessity. That's what most people fail to realize - nature is ALWAYS looking for the path of least resistance - how does a job get done with minimal effort, in the best possible way it can be done? A hexagon was the necessary model by which the creatures' structures would provide the necessary room and not collapse.
Nope. The hexagonal shape simply happens to be a result of the geometrical packing of circles. Where circles of equal diameter pack together each circle can have no more or no less than six surrounding companion circles. It's the nature of circles.But, of course, it is not as if the bees "chose" the hexagon. More or less, the hexagon chose them, after a fashion - through countless generations of success and failure, with the successes leading to greater and greater "pseudo-understanding" through instinct.
Note what happens after they are squeezed together, they form a hexagon out of the inner circle. A natural state of affairs. Thing is, bees and wasps, like other insects instinctually form round cavities, the most efficient shape there is (considering area to circumference ratio). That they assume a hexagon shape is just a matter of natural happenstance. Take a look a this bee comb whose cells have not been pressured into hexagons.
Note their almost circular shape. ......................................................................... This stands in dramatic contrast to cells that do undergo pressure packing.
No premeditation or instinct one the part of these insects to create hexagonal cells at all.
Last edited: