> The letter to the ABJ was fairly non-specific, but what I understand him
to
> be referring to is the phenomenon of continually selecting for survivor
> mites from worker brood.

I understood the same.  Even if that was not the point being made by the
author (and I think it was) it *is* the point that I am raising here.

> Assumming all drone brood mites are killed, Then
> each generation of mites would, presumably, be better able to reproduce in
> worker brood, as all survivors have the traits that enable this behavior.

I don't think your assumption is necessary.  More about that below.

> If you somehow managed to breed a mite that easily reproduced in worker
> cells, then this mite would, presumably, be better able to adapt
> to breeding in 4.9 foundation.  That assumption of perfect kill of drone
> produced mites is quite a large one, however.

That's a large assumption alright, but not one that I am making.  Let's
assume that only 50% of the drone brood in a hive is killed, and with it the
mites that were growing in it.  Let's say for the sake of argument that at
that time, 1% of the mites in brood in this colony were in worker brood.  By
killing 50% of the drone brood mites, you've doubled the percentage of the
next generation of mites that was born from worker brood.  Now do that over
and over and over....

If one accepts as plausible the hypothesis that mites born from worker brood
are more likely than those born from drone brood to be able to lay their
eggs in worker brood, then you are selecting for that ability any time you
kill any quantity of drone brood without killing an equal quantity of worker
brood.  The higher the percentage of drone brood you kill, the more
aggressively you are breeding worker brood compatible mites, no?

Frank.
-----
The very act of seeking sets something in motion to meet us;
something in the universe, or in the unconscious responds as if
to an invitation.  - Jean Shinoda Bolen