Bob said;
>>Varroa jacobsoni was first noticed and discovered in 1904 so to say V.J 
>>has
>>been a parasite of cerana for MILLIONS  of years is a big leap.

> You're joking, right?

I am not.

Louis Pasteur discovered heating milk killed
> disease causing bacteria in the 1860s but we don't suppose there
> weren't bacteria before that. The estimated age of bacteria is in the
> billions of years.

Why would you even compare a blood sucking mite to a bacteria? Show me some 
proof the mite was not sucking on another host and simply changed hosts 
around 1904? The Chinese notice small details.


My point is varroa J. could well have been a parasite of another insect and 
only transfered to cerana around the time first noticied. Documented and 
named. After all varroa  can be seen with the naked eye eye. Especially on a 
small bee like cerana.

The statement the author of your 1990 paper saying V.J. has been a parasite 
of cerana for MILLIONS of years can not be proved unless a fossel mite is 
foundon a fossel bee. Provide such an example to prove your point and I will 
concede V.j has been a parasite of cerana for millions of years.

Are you going to agree I have a valid point?

>
> Anderson writes
>> The extent of genetic variation that has been uncovered among V. 
>> jacobsoni infesting A. cerana in Asia is remarkable, and probably 
>> reflects a long period of co-evolution between the mite and the bee.

I am a fan of Anderson for sure but what Anderson says is a bit different 
than what the 1990 article said.

Anderson:
"PROBABLY reflects a long period of co-evolution between the mite and the 
bee"

Bob Harrison:
We have a documented 104 year period for sure and a big unknown before 1904.

1990 author:
"Through millions of years of being paratizied by the mite the bees have 
developed some degree of resistance to its attacks"

*If* the author had done as Anderson did and placed the word *probably* at 
the start of the sentence I would have let it slide.

Still what you did not comment on is that the main reason in the 1990 paper 
( although there are others with cerana such as opening drone cells and 
removing V.J.) for cerana handling Vj is the absconding and not  the fact VJ 
does not reproduce in worker cells. If the same was true with mellifera V.d. 
would not be much of an issue with mellifera in my opinion.  The piece you 
posted seemed to indicate absconding was the *main* reason cerana handles 
V.J which is simply not true.

I would rate absconding behind

1. Vj. not able to reproduce in worker cells

2. V.J removal from cells. In fact cerana leaves a pin hole in its cells 
until the last possible time which
is believed so cerana can detect and remove V.j

3. very short postcapping time as compared to mellifera


4. absconding (could be no. 3 but I still would say 4.)

bob

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************