> I am sorry if I posted inaccurate information about which crops are better 
> pollinated by bumblebees than honey bees. I am sure this varies from 
> region to region and from year to year, but never mind. The point, 
> however,  was to refute the statement that wild bees are not in decline. 
> There is so much evidence of this, that the statement is utter nonsense. 
> But I was attempting to cite recent work on the subject. Too bad our 
> author is not up to speed on commercial pollination; she did a thorough 
> job of tracking the bees though.

No apology necessary.  Most of the longstanding readers of BEE-L are 
critical thinkers and don't believe everything they read.  We realise that 
there are very few articles of any size that do not contain errors, 
misconceptions or oversights of one kind or another or reveal a bias, and 
that there are local effects and exceptions that may be unforeseen even by 
scrupulous writers.

We were recently treated to a post with two links to articles discussing the 
observation that most studies are flawed or just plain wrong.  I believe one 
was a link to a study about studies, <G>.

You regularly post excerpts from studies you find significant and we all 
appreciate them, but do not hold you responsible for the human foibles of 
the writers.  Sometimes a false statement is as thought provoking as a true 
one -- or more so.

For example, we have been discussing small cell, and although most of us 
with even a smattering of scientific background doubt the simple underlying 
premise, and any proof of the thesis is elusive, we have benefitted greatly 
from examining the issue anew and have learned quite a bit about our 
assumptions about using foundation in brood comb.

Keep on posting those articles.  We will continue to pick them apart :)

 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html