Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:13:22 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
quote:
"[feral] 1. Said of animals normally found in a domestic
situation or in captivity: wild; fending for itself.
Example: feral cats"
This is precisely my point: honey bees are not *in captivity* nor can they
truly be said to be domesticated. In my opinion, hive bees are wild, for all
intents and purposes. Unless you can show some significant difference
between bees in hives and bees escaped to the woods, then the distinction
implied by "feral" simply does not apply.
Now, I offered two examples where there is a distinction made (Australia and
Texas). In both cases, ferals were referred to as being a negative thing.
The Australians said ferals swarm too much and don't make much honey (which
could be a factor of the nest cavity size, of course, and not a trait at
all). The Texas ferals were all Africanized.
In terms of "fending" for themselves, how would you test this? How long
would a colony have to fend for itself? Even without varroa, individual
colonies frequently fail, for reasons having nothing to do with disease.
Sometimes, a colony will fail to supercede the queen until it's too late. Or
the queen will fail to return from mating.
isis
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|