Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:32:55 +1100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 18/03/2014 1:02 AM, Peter L Borst wrote:
> Recent work by Juliana Rangel is surprising:
>
> Evidently, a
> colony headed by a low-quality queen is not more likely to
> replace the queen based solely on her reproductive potential.
>
> * * *
>
> Note: we have observed this countless times, where a completely failed queen is NOT superseded, is kept alive by the bees long past her expiration date whereas a brand new queen from a reputable supplier is superseded in months or even weeks. There must be some other factor. Everyone assumes that the bees pick up a cue and supersede or not based upon that cue. When it may be the queen herself that decides whether it's time for her to step aside. So far as I know, nobody has ever looked at it from this point of view.
The amazing thing is that we are able to requeen at all. Replacing a
queen with another that is not her daughter means that the hive is
effectually dead. There is no biological reason why these workers
should accept an unrelated queen.
Geoff Manning
***********************************************
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
|
|
|