>>With the discovery of epigenetics, we now have a plausible explanation for 
>>what has been claimed by proponents of forcing bees onto smaller cell 
>>foundation

> I am sorry but this is simply not true.  Epigenetics covers certain 
> heritable changes that aren't directly attributable to classic Mendelian 
> inheritance. However, it does not mean that we now believe *anything* can 
> be inherited.

I apologise if my article was not crystal clear -- I thought it was -- but I 
was writing for a deadline and had to run after only an edit or two.  I 
don't think the writer understood what I said, and in quoting, my 
explanation was truncated to exclude the point I was making and the reply 
deals with many things, but not my point.

I specifically excluded all the claimed 'superpowers' from my consideration 
and referred only to size and the possibility that this new line of thinking 
might give some credibility to the notion that bees which are forced to 
raise smaller offspring might do so for some generations after.

I believe that one example given previously on this list and not questioned 
was that some plants grow distinctly different replacement leaves after 
being browsed by animal.  From that I deduced that a physical pressure had 
caused an observable change in form that endured for a while in the plant 
before disappearing.

I also said 'plausible' and 'possible', not 'likely' or 'proven'.  I'm just 
floating an idea.

We are repeatedly subjected to anecdotal reports that bees can be 
'downsized', and from many people.  Some of these reports seem quite 
credible.

As far as I know that matter -- downsizing -- has not been scientifically 
examined, and my guess is that the reason is that the whole notion sounds 
like rubbish to those trained in science in years past.  *Upsizing* was 
experimented with and my understanding was that the results were minimal and 
quite unimpressive (regardless of many misinformed claims to the contrary) 
Now that we have had some evidence of effects that that resemble a degree of 
temporary, at least, Lamarckism, it seems to me that we have a rationale for 
the observed effect.

I hope this is clearer. My notion has *nothing* to do with development time, 
and all those other points that are popularly associated with the matter of 
bee and cell size and the interdependence between the two.

I thought I covered this fairly well in my original post and would like to 
see some comments that address the points I raised. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html