Hi Adrian and All

> The genome sequencing of the honey bee DNA, completed
> in 2006, provided an opportunity to resolve the
controversy.

and ...

> No genes for “bee language” surfaced.  <snip>  The
language
> hypothesis had thus failed another test and the
odor-search
> hypothesis gained more support.

It seems to me that you have just erected a false premise
that leads to a false conclusion.  Does bee dance language
require a set of genes which researchers can identify as
such?  No, there was no such opportunity to 'resolve the
controversy', not that this was needed any more after the
review by Smith and Otis!

Odour is important to honeybees, that is certain.  That bees
should have more odour-receptor genes than some other
insects is no surprise.  They need a diverse set of such
receptors and they also need the means to process the
signals from these receptor.  Genes for the former can be
identified, but not for the latter.  The lack of knowledge
on the genetic control of the apparatus which allows
tracking by odour does *not* mean that bees cannot track by
odour.  It just means that our understanding is imperfect.

Similarly, to interpret the dance languauge a bee need eyes
and also organs to detect vibrations, both of which they
possessed anyway for other purposes.  In addition to that,
it needs a means of processing the information gained from
these organs.  The genes which code for the machinery to
permit this processing to happen, as with odour, are not
understood.

So, it is no surprise that genes involved in the dance
language are hard to find.  What kinds of genes do you
suggest that the researchers seek?

Even in humans, genes involved in the speech and thought
processes that distinguish us from chimpanzees are hard to
find.  All that science has come up with yet is a
transcription factor FOXP2, a DNA element that influences
the switching of pre-existing genes.

http://www.broad.mit.edu/news/links/chimp-backgrounder.html

You criticise others for wanting a particular outcome from
their research, yet you are so keen to persuade others of
your point of view that you erect spurious arguments such as
this which really don't stand up to inspection.

On Smith and Otis:
> They rounded up all the confirmation evidence and
> positive commentary they could find.

Not true!  The papers they review were recent and mostly
well-designed experimental studies which were without bias
and were capable of delivering outcomes which would either
concur with or contradict the odour-only view.

> Can we now expect an O.J. type defense tactic
> (DNA isn’t necessary for the instinctive dance
> language, after all)?

If that was intended to stifle opposition, it didn't work!

best wishes to all

Gavin.

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---