The message that follows deals with the Fred Dyer survey over the
SOCINSCT network (how many agreed with his statement of the bee "language"
hypothesis), Julian O'Dea's retort, and Thomas Culliney's earlier message
on the subject.
 
********
 
   Recent input permits me to clarify some points about the bee language
controversy --- as requested directly to me by several subscribers to one
or another of the networks currently involved in that topic.
 
   In my contribution of 31 January, I had written:  "A honey bee dance
language hypothesis no longer seems to exist."  I had also stated:  "The
disparate views aired during this Internet exchange indicate quite clearly
that consensus no longer exists..."
 
********
 
   On 12 February, Fred Dyer reported on a survey he had conducted over the
SOCINSCT network:  "Of about 262 subscribers to the list, only 26 replied,
including me....
 
   He had asked how many subscribers agreed with his statement, as follows:
"Main question:   Honey bee recruits can use the directional and distance
information contained in the dances of foragers TO BIAS their search for
food."  (emphasis mine)
 
  The results:  "AGREE:   26  --- DISAGREE:  0"
 
   Fred concluded, "I guess there is a consensus after all..."
 
********
 
   Julian O'Dea responded immediately (12 February) with a cogent comment:
"I remember seeing the results of a similar opinion survey on a scientific
issue. [The] last question was, 'Do you think these kinds of opinion
surveys are of any value in science?' to which there was a 100% answer,
NO."
 
   I might ask:   Should one optimistically view the glass as one-tenth
full (26 positive opinions out of 262) --- or realistically as nine-tenths
empty?
 
   And:   With our present anonymous review system still in place, would
any wise person willingly vote openly against an opinion held by even 26
potential reviewers of manuscripts and grant proposals?   A double-blind
approach in such a survey would be the least we should expect.
 
********
 
    Earlier (1 February) Thomas Culliney provided six paragraphs of
quotations from a von Frisch 1962 August SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article,
information which clearly indicates that von Frisch knew exactly what he
meant by his hypothesis.
 
   He did not include the first two sentences of that von Frisch article;
they read as follows:
 
   "For almost two decades my colleagues and I have been studying one of
the most remarkable systems of communication that nature has evolved.  This
is the 'language' of bees:  the dancing movements by which forager bees
direct their hivemates, WITH GREAT PRECISION, to a source of food"
(emphasis mine).
 
   Seven years after his concise hypothesis had failed a double controlled
test (Ch. 9 in our book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY) and five years after it
had failed a strong inference test (Ch. 10 in our book), von Frisch wrote
(SCIENCE, 23 August 1974):  "To sum up, this and preceding experiments
taught us that the information on the direction and distance of the goal
WAS ADHERED TO WITH ASTONISHING ACCURACY..." (emphasis mine).
 
********
 
   I hope by now that my earlier statement --- any consensus on exactly
what we should expect when we experiment with honey bee recruitment to food
sources no longer seems to exist.  I certainly did not mean that one could
not find a score of individuals who would vote in support of a vague and
scientifically untestable statement of a formerly concise hypothesis.
 
    Are we to have sun compass orientation, magnetic compass orientation,
and cognitive maps that can be used by searching bees, if the original von
Frisch "with great precision" conviction is not true?  What would von
Frisch think of this remarkable retrenchment?
 
********
********
 
   An aside:  For those who responded to my offer to mail "a revealing
critique" of the ocelli-blinded misdirection experiments, please have
patience.  All last week I was on a research trip to Santa Cruz Island
(studying the natural spread of parasitic varroa mites among feral honey
bee colonies) and need time to catch up on a substantial backlog of work.
 
   Yours for a better understanding of science.
 
                                                                        Adrian
 
 
 
***************************************************************
* Adrian Wenner        E-Mail   [log in to unmask]  *
* Dept.Ecol.,Evol.,& Mar.Biol. Office Phone    (805) 893-2838 *
* University of California     Lab Phone       (805) 893-2675 *
* Santa Barbara, CA  93106     FAX             (805) 893-8062 *
*                                                             *
* "Once a structurally complete and closed system of opinions *
*consisting of many details and relations has been formed, it * *offers
enduring resistance to anything that contradicts it." *
*                                   Ludwik Fleck, 1935 [1979] *
***************************************************************