> True, but I've also noticed a tendency to dismiss  all suggestion of
> genetic change in a strain as a result of small cell as 'Lamarckianism'
> when this isn't necessarily the case. It seems that some strains  downsize
> more easily than others, so it's likely that continued use of small  cell
> will filter out genotypes which have trouble making the transition. The
> result, over several generations, may well be a genetically smaller bee
> due, not  to the appearance of new genetics, but to simple selection.

True, and that is not being disputed.  Neither is the fact that there is
likely to be more to genetics and heredity than the basic, mainstream ideas
that have been proven and tested and taught in schools.  I think that, in
looking at classical genetics, we are all aware that we may be looking at a
something akin to Newtonian Physics, where we have a good model for everyday
understanding, but an incomplete one, and where inadequacies show up in
looking at some sorts of situations, and where those who are deeply immersed
in the science are aware of many nuances and special mechanisms.

What we are disputing, and some are patiently and thoughtfully discussing,
is:

1. whether this is particularly relevant here, or if the classical
    model is adequate

2. if the matter can be simplified or extrapolated to the extent
    some would like

3. if arguing something is so, makes it so

4. whether we are dealing with fact or fancy in the claims that
    some make, and whether we need use Occam's razor and
    ascribe some apparently permanent 'downsizing' to
    Africanization and temporary effects to stunting, or malnutrition

5. whether all the bees in the world were "forced", to use one
    writer's words, to become permanently larger in a matter of
    a few decades.  (We can all see how bees can be forced
    smaller by being crammed into small cells, but not all of us
    can understand how they can be forced bigger and in such
    a massive and permanent scale)

6. whether nutrition can change genetics an a direct and heritable
    way sufficient to be germane to the discussion.  We all seem
   to agree that nutrition, radiation, drugs, etc. can cause DNA
   problems that affect individual direct offspring, but are less
   willing to concede long-term effects on a line, at least ones that
   are likely to be of a desirable nature

There is likely more, and I hope that others will build on this.  To the
extent that we all express some degree of questioning and open-mindedness,
we have good discussions and learn, but when dogma and magick are seemingly
invoked; opinions are represented as fact; people are misquoted; articles
are cited, but misapplied; or fantasy enters the picture, some members call,
"Foul!".

Moreover, we have had continuing discussions on many of these matters over a
decade and more, and the more subtle, deeper thoughts of many of the
regulars are on record, so their current comments are often merely brief
addenda and must be understood in the context of earlier writings.  This
point may be misunderstood by newcomers or those who don't follow the
threads, some of which go back years, and who just jump in and assume they
are getting the whole picture.

Personally, I am open to hear any wacky idea, and happy to consider it and
discuss it good-naturedly until the cows come home -- until someone makes it
into dogma and says I have to believe it, or until it dominates the
conversation, crowds out other topics and floods the list to the point where
people who value their time start unsubscribing.

Did I just say small cell is wacky?  No I did not.

allen

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing
himself.
            -- Leo Tolstoy

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