>It would still be extremely rare
>
>Apparently it is not at all rare in the bees in the Tucson area.  In fact, I
>have heard from several sources, that it can be demonstrated at will.
>
>and can not be invoked as the
>mechanism in any sort of unintentional selection for larger bees over
>the past 100 years.
>
>I think that was meant to be a separate and unrelated topic.


I was referring to the connection that Dee Lusby herself made in the
exchange which follows. I have made the assertion that bees have not
been enlarged by foundation, that they can not be genetically altered
by enlarged foundation. She contends that thelytoky is the mechanism
by which the enlarged workers pass on this acquired trait to their
offspring (parthenogenetic queens). I find this explanation
far-fetched and contrary to everything I have read and learned about
bees in almost 30 years. I have presented my case in a clear and
sustained manner, but I do not claim to be able to prove or disprove
anything. Everyone is free to believe what they wish, of course.


>Peter wrote:
>  While it is true that bees can be made slightly larger and
>considerably smaller by being raised in different sized
>cells, I do not believe that this trait is acquired by this
>process.
>
>Reply:
>This depends upon how you look on the situation Peter
>relative to complex mongrel breeding coupled with usage of
>artificially enlarged combs which add steps of regression
>for downsizing into the scenario and retrogression for
>reversing the layers of piled on breeding mixtures.
>
>Peter wrote:
>  The workers do not pass on any characteristics to their
>children, as they have none[no children]. The queen acquires no traits
>from the workers as they are not her parents.
>
>Reply:
>In a way they do. Workers pass on characteristics by way of
>laying workers that produce both drones or workers, of
>which if workers are produced they certainly can become
>queens.

--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>