[log in to unmask] wrote:
> if these "lus bees" were really "ahb", it would say a lot about the observational abilities of these researchers.
I am not sure what you think it says, but -- What does it say that
this work was done in 1991 and none of the participants except the
Lusbys thought it was worth pursuing? In fact, in the ensuing almost
20 years, the original paper has only been cited once that I could
find:
Thelytoky by honeybee workers other than A. m. capensis is rare but
has been described repeatedly (Mackensen, 1943; Tucker, 1958;
DeGrandi-Hoffman et al., 1991*) [* "Thelytoky in a strain of U.S.
honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)"
G. DeGrandi-Hoffman, E. H. Erickson Jr., D. Lusby, and E. Lusby May,
1991 - Bee Science]
However, none of these occurrences evolved into stable thelytokous or
parasitic populations. Although thelytoky promotes the evolution of
reproductive dominance and social parasitism, these systems must be
lacking other traits necessary to allow for the fixation of the
parasitic behaviour.
In the case studied here, the invasive lineage probably lacks an
efficient host finding mechanism because the phenomenon is sustained
by beekeepers' activities. In the other cases where thelytoky
appeared, the local potential host was certainly not susceptible
enough to allow parasitism to evolve or the thelytokous strains lacked
other necessary traits associated with successful reproduction.
Alternatively, parasitic lineages may occur at a low frequency and
could have remained undetected
We hypothesize that the monopoly of the invasive lineage in the
parasitic population is due to the ability of this lineage to
out-compete other A. m. capensis lineages through a superior or more
rapid ability to produce mandibular gland pheromones. We suggest
that the competition for reproductive dominance occurred at two levels
during the selection process of this lineage: (a) intracolonial level:
there is strong competition between individual workers for
reproductive dominance within queenless colonies of Cape honeybees and
of other subspecies.
This competition results in the reproductive domination by one or a
few patrilines in a given colony. This probably also occurs in
multiply infested A. m. scutellata colonies, where a few thelytokous
A. m. capensis lineages can dominate reproduction (as they
pheromonally out compete A. m. scutellata, see above). (b) population
level: winners of intracolonial competition are likely to compete
directly with each other for limited host resources, because
* the colonies they infest eventually die and they have to find new
host colonies *
"Pheromonal dominance and the selection of a socially parasitic
honeybee worker lineage (Apis mellifera capensis Esch.)"
V. DIETEMANN, et al Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 20(3):997-1007, May 2007
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
