I wrote:
>While it is true that bees can be made slightly larger and
>considerably smaller by being raised in different sized cells, I do
>not believe that this trait is acquired by this process.

Dee Lusby's reply:
>This depends upon how you look on the situation Peter relative to
>complex mongrel breeding coupled with usage of artificially enlarged
>combs which add steps of regression for downsizing into the scenario
>and retrogression for reversing the layers of piled on breeding
>mixtures.

Questions:
1. What is "complex mongrel breeding"?
2. What is a "piled on breeding mixture"?
(these are not conventional terms)
3. Do you have a "true" type of honey bee?
4. Where did it come from?

-----------------------------------------

I wrote:
>The workers do not pass on any characteristics to their children, as
>they have none [no children]. The queen acquires no traits from the
>workers as they are not her parents.

Reply:
>In a way they do. Workers pass on characteristics by way of laying
>workers that produce both drones or workers, of which if workers are
>produced they certainly can become queens.

In normal beekeeping practice, and in nature, a hive with laying
workers is rare. Many beekeepers kill the colony by dumping it out in
the bushes.  I have seen the little drones produced by laying workers
and I doubt if they could ever mate with a queen.

As far as queens appearing in laying worker hives, this is so rare
that no one has ever seen it except you and Otto Mackensen (excepting
Cape Bees, of course). To invoke laying workers as a *significant
pathway* of heredity is incorrect. You are resorting to a very
complicated explanation to back up your theory.

--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>

"All of these interpretations are similar in that, reluctant to
entertain commonplace and common-sense explanations, they first
concoct a story of mystery and glamor and subsequently seek facts to
support it."