> So far as I know, nobody has ever proven that this has taken place anywhere.
>> It is explained in some antique books.

Right. But that certainly doesn't constitute proof, now, does it? Look, I
understand that varroa may have greater difficulty reproducing in small
cells than in large. That's probably why they prefer drone cells. But, the
whole idea that bees "used to be smaller" has not been proven.

You can say: putting bees on smaller cells reduces varroa, fine. But then to
say it is because the were smaller, that simply doesn't follow. You can
prove smaller cells reduces varroa, but why is this so? Maybe because
there's less room, period.

Furthermore, following the example of the bound feet, generations of women
had their feet bound, and nobody was born with smaller feet as a result. As
far as  people breeding for larger bees, I don't think that has taken place.
Why would  somebody breed a bigger bee, when all you have to do is put them
on bigger comb?

Bees have been selected for about a hundred and fifty years, and mainly for
color, honey production, and tractability. Some selection has been done for
disease resistance. But how much have bees really changed as a result?

Well, you can get really yellow ones, but honey production is hardly better
than 100 years ago, probably worse. They seem MORE susceptible to disease,
but that could be due to the stresses placed on them by commercial
beekeepers and pesticides in the environment.

Breeding a particular trait in bees is not that easy, due to the fact of
open mating and the way traits are passed (briefly, it's not like breeding
sweet peas where you can see results right away)

Isis Glass

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---