In message <[log in to unmask]>, Stan Sandler
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>That was a very interesting list of adaptations in a. cerana.
>
..but not comprehensive.
 
>>but I would be tempted to change the mite not the bee.
>
>Given the list of adaptations you mentioned, I might agree.  But if we could
>develop bees with a grooming adaptation it might even have other benefits.
>It would seem to me that this is not far outside the realm of possibility,
>as bees *do* groom themselves, and on occasion they groom others (if they
>are sticky, for example).
Sure, but the sort of thing I was pointing to was this. The mite is a
very specific beast and (for a mite) a very unusual shape. This is
because it inserts itself between the abdominal plates and is then hard
to get at. It's so specific that it probably would'nt fit into any other
type of bees interstatial (is that the word?) spaces. And the ones
moving on the bees that you see are quite fast. If we make a bee that
will catch and chew them will it create selection pressure for smaller,
flatter, faster mites that can't be caught... or ones that pop out of a
brood cell and go straight into the next? Despite our helping the bee's
speed of evolution the mite's is inherently faster.
>  Maybe we have to change the mite to make it taste
>better :) .
Thats an idea I like.
>
>I wonder if the reason that bombus has this ability and a. cerana doesn't
>(despite its long association with the mite) is size related.
 
I believe in fact that cerana can do this also.
 
--
Dave Black
<http://www.guildford.ac.uk/beehive>,
Guildford, GU1 4RN.  UK.