Every couple of years the dance "language" controversy re-surfaces
on this and on other e-mail networks.  Julian O'Day's manuscript
(posted on 7/26) provided the stimulus for this latest exchange.

    A major problem with this controversy (as with all controversies)
stems from the inability of participants to separate out the issues
and address them one at a time.   We used the following 1987
quotation of Bruno Latour on p. 353, in our 1990 Columbia University
Press book (ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY: THE QUESTION OF A "LANGUAGE"
AMONG HONEY BEES:

   "We have to understand first how many elements can be brought to
bear on a controversy; once this is understood, the other problems
will be easier to solve."

    The following items are important issues in the "language" controversy:

1) Elements of the waggle dance maneuver.
2) Accuracy of information in the dance maneuver.
3) Whether searching bees "use" waggle dance information.
4) Early research on successful odor recruitment to crops.
5) Bee sensitivity to odors.
6) Beekeeper "use" of the "language" hypothesis.

    In our 1990 book, Pat Wells and I addressed each of those issues
at length.  Subsequently, additional information has become
available.  Fortunately, Barry Birkey has now provided a platform
long denied those who disagree with the "language" interpretation.
Those interested in our role can begin by accessing the following web
site:

    www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/readme.htm

    Julian O'Dea's draft manuscript focused on the third item in the
above list, but most of the postings on BEE-L addressed other issues.
One can readily find my response to most of the points raised in the
past several days in the three dozen listed items in
www.beesource.com/pov/wenner

    The content of Julian's manuscript actually closely parallels
material published by von Frisch in 1937 and 1943, as well as work by
Russian workers during the same period (as Peter Dillon pointed out:
Khalifman's 1939 book).  Ronald Ribbands reviewed that research in
his 1953 book.  In a paper I have coming out in September, I include
the following passage:

"Beekeepers could assist growers greatly if they could direct honey
bees (Apis mellifera) from their hives to one specific crop or
another; that was the goal of a group of Russian bee researchers and
of Karl von Frisch in the 1930s and early 1940s.  By the simple
process of inserting odor into a colony, they could increase
visitation to a crop.  Ribbands (1953:184) summarized some of the
odor-directed results obtained by two Russian researchers; he
reported that Kapustin obtained a 24-fold increase in honey bee
visits and a doubling of the seed crop, while Gubin had a 19-fold
increase in the honey bee population on red clover, with a trebling
of the seed crop.  Gubin also found that bees successfully trained by
feeding scented syrup inside the hive visited vetches, sunflowers,
and lucerne."

    In his 1937 and in 1943 papers, von Frisch had obtained comparable
results to those reported by the Russians.  However, both of his
salient papers became essentially lost with his invention of the
language hypothesis.  One can now find the 1937 paper on the
following web site:

    http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/bw1993.htm

    The 1943 paper, in German, had been translated by the IBRA.  One
can find English excerpts of that paper at the following web site:

    http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/frisch1943.htm

    It should come as no surprise that the existence of these von
Frisch papers essentially disappeared from consideration this past
half century.  The text of Julian's draft manuscript meshes well with
those early findings of von Frisch and the Russian workers.

    As to the sensitivity of bees to odors, recent work with the
location of buried land mines by honey bees illustrates the extreme
sensitivity of bees to trace amounts of odor.  It also means that
those who claim that bees can be recruited without the use of odor
may have merely had an artifact in their experimental designs (Jerry
Bromenshenk might comment on that point).  Von Frisch was also
adamant about the need for odor during recruitment (see above web
sites).

    See also:  ODORS, WIND AND COLONY FORAGING.  Part I of Three
Parts: The Need for Odor.  Am. Bee J., 138:746-748. October 1998.

    A comment on point #6 is in order.  What beekeeper heads to the
bee yard and ponders how best to exploit the dance "language"
hypothesis to improve his operation that day?  No, millions have been
spent on the examination of the bee dance maneuver (the symptom of
what a forager has experienced), without any obvious benefit to the
beekeeper during this past half century.  What research of importance
to beekeepers could have been accomplished with those same funds?

                                                        Adrian




--
Adrian M. Wenner                (805) 963-8508 (home office phone)
967 Garcia Road                 [log in to unmask]
Santa Barbara, CA  93103        www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm

****************************************************************************
*
*    "T'is the majority [...that] prevails.  Assent, and you are sane
*       Demur, you're straightway dangerous, and handled with a chain."
*
*                                    Emily Dickinson, 1862
*
****************************************************************************