> There have been many discussions in this forum on the worker cell
> size of naturally built comb.
I very much appreciate the information you are providing on this and other
current topics. I realise it takes a lot of work to keep supplying quotes
and references. Thank you.
Such contributions elevate the level of discussion considerably. It is nice
to have some fact injected into our continuing and wide-ranging
speculations. <g>
Please forgive me if I take what a trained bee scientist would consider to
be the Devil's Advocate position here and again wander off the beaten track.
>... many researchers
> have concurred that European bees make comb with worker cells that
> average around 53 mm (Taber & Owens, Michener),
My own somewhat limited investigations reached that same conclusion. See
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/Misc/CellCount.htm , nonetheless, I am
always reluctant to dismiss utterly the anecdotal reports and continuing
discussion from those that take exception to these apparent facts. I assume
that when otherwise intelligent people disagree strongly on some obvious
point, that there is often something that is being assumed by one group that
is not understood or accepted by the other.
In this case, I think that Adrian's current favourite quote from Dick
Gregory gives us some guidance in understanding why there is disagreement:
"We not only believe what we see: to some extent we see what we believe." --
Richard Gregory (1970)
Those who have grown up in a century where combs built on wax foundation are
considered normal and those combs built by unrestrained bees as abnormal
(which includes pretty well all of us) make assumptions we do not even
realise we are making. One concerns the uniformity of cell size on our
idealized comb and our assumption that only one or two sizes of cell are
necessary in a hive. Another is that we can ignore the variability of the
bees we manage, and talk about averages.
Consider this analogy: If we said that the average shoe size in Europeanized
men (not even one remote African ancestor) is a ten and thereafter talk
about ten as being the Europeanized men's shoe size, and ignore all
variations (and the fact that some people need to buy two shoes of different
sizes -- one for each foot) would that be reasonable? If we ordered only
size ten shoes and issued then to all Europeanized men and insisted that
they wear them, would that be reasonable?
Obviously not, but that is about where we have gotten in our beekeeping. We
just assume we can issue one arbitrary size of foundation -- whatever it
might be -- and make the bees use it. We have gotten away with it thus far,
but the whole idea does bear some scrutiny.
> some people contend
> that this size reflects an artificial enlargement *caused* by the use
> of foundation based on larger than natural dimensions. This idea
> itself is based on a faulty understanding of biology (externally
> induced characteristics are not passed on to offspring).
Yes, and no. The arguments are more subtle than simple Lamarckism. If they
were simply Lamarckian , http://www.top-biography.com/9100-Lamarck/ they
would be easier to dismiss (although I must interject here that Lamarck,
although somewhat disgraced and discounted, has never been absolutely
disproven -- nor can he be -- by any logical proof).
The arguments we hear are more along the line of a concept that is best
understood by the oft-touted example of Asian humans growing to larger sizes
when exposed as children to a Western diet. There is no genetic change
here, yet there are physical changes that will affect how the larger
phenotypes will structure their immediate personal environment. Is it
unreasonable to assume that taller people will build taller clothes and
houses with taller doors, and pass that tendency on? Should the nutritional
advantages disappear, would it be unreasonable to assume the clothing size,
then the home size would diminish agan. No Lamarckian magic here. Another
example: reportedly, in mediaeval Europe, units of measure were established
by using a body part of royalty as a standard. How do bees decide what size
to build cells? Do they use their own bodies as callipers?
Unfortunately, a lot of spurious arguments have gotten in the way of
understanding the several interesting viewpoints that are central to the
controversy. I must admit that I have spent more time than I should trying
to follow arcane arguments about what writers in the past saw, recorded or
really meant when they observed natural comb and tried to calculate cells
per area, etc from the measurements. I eventually concluded that anyone can
make mistakes, including A.I Root, and that trying to second guess what some
of the rather mathematically-challenged bee writers thought they saw is a
waste of time.
What I have thus far gotten out of this whole cell size thing is this:
* Lusbys have bees that are doing okay without any treatment and
those bees are on 4.9 comb, although the reasons they advance
for their success still need careful and open-minded examination
* The Russian bees may be able to do so also without a cell size
change, although this latter point has not been examined and may
bear scrutiny
* Bees of any ancestry build comb with cells in a range of sizes, often
with a range on any given comb
* 4.9 mm cells may well be in the range of cell sizes that (some selected)
European bees can use for brood
* We need to revisit the whole question of mandating moveable comb
for all purposes including pollination as the value of honey and hive
products drops relative to expense
* We need to re-examine the idea of using comb foundation and what
sizes are optimal
* We cannot just say 'bees' and be understood
* We really don't know as much about bees as we think we do
* Some of our conventional wisdom is based on assumptions that may
be false
* The whole Killer Bee and Africanized question is tainted and needs to
be re-examined from start to finish
* People will argue endlessly over speculation, but Peter will (eventually)
get to the bottom of everything.
Thanks Peter.
allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/
|
