> I was referring to the much wider issues about cellsize, the Lusby 
> situation is only one small aspect and most people have made up their mind 
> that legitimising AHB is at least one of the reasons behind it.

Thanks, Dave and Randy for understanding at least partially what I am 
writing about.

I am not talking about Lusbys and all the other small cell stuff, although I 
must credit Dee and Ed for starting me thinking about this whole question.

At one point, researchers, for various reasons investigated the idea of 
making bees larger.

AFAIK, nobody has properly investigated making bees *smaller*.

It seems to me that this is an intriguing idea and there are many anecdotal 
reports that should be verified. Of course they cannot be disproven, since 
we encounter the black swan problem in attempting that.

To the others that misread what I wrote and then commented -- some in a 
personal manner -- please read what I wrote, or start a new thread on the 
favourite topics that were read into my comments.

Thanks.

To Randy: I have seen the same thing when dealing with bulk quantities of 
cells from a supplier who does not breed his stock narrowly.  I estimated 
the hatch date from one sample, and was surprised by the range of actual 
hatching times.  Of course, some will argue that the cells on the end were 
cooler, etc., but I am pretty sure the difference was the varying genetics 
of queens grafted. 

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