Julian O'Dea said:

> The "dance" of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) is one of the most
> famous of all animal behaviours, but its meaning remains controversial.

There's that word again - "Controversial".
Funny how no one except those trying to promote "odor" over "dance" use
that word to describe the situation.

> A longstanding debate centres on whether this "dance" is a language,

A "debate" requires someone on each side of the question, and some direct
responsive back-and-forth interaction.  What we have is not a "debate", but
instead, chanting.  Despite attempts to pose direct questions of the chanters
about what is being chanted, the chanting continues as if no questions are
posed.
(Even the Hare Krishnas in the airports would stop chanting for a bit if you
gave
them a dollar.)

> An alternative hypothesis is that locality odour alone...

This statement presumes that such a thing as a unique "locality ordor"
exists for some large number of arbitrary "localities".  Since odors
are easy to detect and map down to single molecules with modern equipment,
the lack of any evidence to support a claim that there is a unique odor
for a "place" is telling.  More than telling, it is devastating.

> But, at the same time, it implies that honeybees must be poor at
> measuring distance in an absolute sense.

Yes, and this is a good thing.  A colony gains nothing if 20 bees all arrive
at the same cluster of clover in a lawn.  A little "inaccuracy" is a good thing,
in that it spreads out the foragers a bit and avoids overlap.  Nature does not
provide feeding dishes, nature provides individual blooms in clumps over wide
areas.

> the apparent lack of absolute accuracy in the information about distance -
> supposedly conveyed in the dance - is a problem for the proposed communicative

> mechanism.

Howso?  As I explained above, a lack of accuracy spreads out the foragers, and
insures that they do not all visit the same exact rose bush on a fence covered
with wild roses.

> The inaccuracy in the supposed means of communication makes it less likely
that
> the dance movements of honeybees have anything to do with communication of the

> whereabouts of resources.

This is like claiming that because my clock is a little slow, it cannot be a
time-keeping device at all.  It is like claiming that directions including
the phrase "go about a mile down the road, then turn left" are useless if
the actual distance is 1.2 or 0.8 miles.

> The alternative, locality odour hypothesis therefore gains in credibility.

It gains NO credibility as a result.  Pointing out minor inaccuracy in a
one (well-understood and oft-tested) mechanism does NOT add any "credibility"
or support for any other specific proposed mechanism.  They must earn their
own credibility on their own merits alone.

First, there are an infinite number of possible communications schemes,
including
mental telepathy.  "Odor" gains no more credibility from the claimed inaccuracy
in "dance" than mental telepathy would.

The only thing that might support an alternative (and there could be many
alternatives)
would be actual evidence that would support the proposed mechanism.

There is no need to even mention "dance".
Talk about "odor".
Explain how it works, in detail.
Answer questions about how it works.
Follow bees leaving hives, and explain how the ones that fly downwind can
be "following an odor".  Even if a few bees fly into the wind, explain
how 8 different "locality odors" might make their way to the hive from
points that are widely separated by direction and distance.

Explain how a field that is partly shaded and partly in sun at 3pm has an
odor that changes as the shadow of the hill moves, since one can see bees
stop working the shaded area as clover goes into shade and stops producing
nectar.  Explain how two fields of the same mixed weeds can have odors unique
from each other.  Explain how a "locality odor" gets back to the hive on a
single bee, and explain how the other bees can detect this odor on the bee
among all the other odors on all the other bees that have arrived within the
last few minutes.

Then detect these odors on bees you capture at the hive entrance, and show a
correlation to an odor that you can detect where the bee foraged.  Show how
this odor is unique to that area, and not the same as odors you collect from
other nearby areas.

In other words, one should provide some evidence in support of one's claim,
rather than nitpicking something claim that is supported by substantial
evidence.

Note well that even if "dance" were proven to be completely random, and
to have no connection to any subsequent movement of foraging bees, "odor"
would still be hampered by the complete lack of an explanation of how it
works, and the complete lack of tangible evidence that such things as
"locality odors" exist.  Without such proof, continued chanting about
"odor" is nothing but mere speculation.


                jim (whose heels are stained with the hearts
                 and souls of the persistently fuzzy)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::