> None of the queens became drone layers--you can ask the author 
> yourself Jim (I did).  You made that claim up out of thin air.

Quoting the paper: "38% Fewer Neonicotinoid queens produced workers compared
to controls".
That's not "thin air".  It's in black and white. In the journal "Nature".

If a queen does not "produce workers", what do we call it?
I would call it a "drone layer", as it is not "producing workers".
Is there some other term you'd like?
If so, wouldn't the difference be, at most, purely semantics?

You did not like the title of the paper either, I remember you called it
"sensationalism". Why?

> You were never heckled, you were merely 
> corrected when you made unsubstantiated claims, 
> and misinterpreted the actual findings of a good
> scientific study.

Quoting a paper verbatim is not an "unsubstantiated claim" or
"misinterpreted findings".  

> If you felt heckled in any way whatsoever, 
> I sincerely apologize,

An apology expresses regret for one's own actions.

> But I will continue, as I suspect will Pete and 
> others, to respond to posts that contain 
> misinformation.

But if you consider the quote "misinformation", why the refusal to state
your own view of the quote at issue?

> you can ask the author yourself (I did).

I don't need to ask the author anything - I accept the plain language of the
paper as published.

To date, there is no errata, or update to the paper, so it seems clear that
the author declines to change his view of his findings.  Those published
findings speak for themselves, and publication in "Nature" tends to speak
louder than most -other published findings.  There are also no comments
critical of the paper posted, despite the Nature-provided facility for
comments.

You neither had, nor have any actual quarrel with me.

             ***********************************************
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