> I guess this shows how little we understood in 1986.  Times change, and old
> ideas
> die hard. Probably fifteen-year-old papers should be quoted for historical
> perspective, but not as truth.
> - John Edwards, Tucson

I guess I should have given the URL to this paper in my last email so the
quoted section can be read in the context of the whole paper.

Part 1 and 2
http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/bcsept86.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/bcoct86.htm

I'm surprised that John's viewpoint on this article is so unfavorable
especially since world renowned bee geneticist Harry Laidlaw gave it quite a
positive endorsement:

"The paper is unusually well written. Conclusions are based on
discriminating observations and thorough analyses, and recommendations are
positive and practical. "It is an excellent paper."

Regards,
Barry