> VSH and Russian both originally 
> derived from Bond selection.  
> Both were further developed for 
> specific traits by Baton Rouge. 

The actual history of the "Bond Method" at Baton Rouge was succinctly
summarized by Bob Harrison back in 2010:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=bee-l;6745663a.1
005D
http://tinyurl.com/k8eg6ee

"...when the USDA Baton Rouge Bee lab used the 'Bond' method, the F3
offspring rarely had the varroa tolerance of the source. Untold hives were
left to die to get enough queens for Dr. Harbo to 'breed from survivors'.
"[This was] the reason the lab looked to science for the reason for varroa
tolerance rather than the 'Bond' method.  Of course one can add some Russian
queens to the 'Bond' method and then claim the 'Bond' method produced the
result. Which is EXACTLY what many singing the praises of the 'Bond' method
have done."

So, those lines were "developed"  by Baton Rouge, not "further developed"
from some starting point provided by "Bond Method", or any other approach. 

> And are still largely maintained by 
> Bond selection, since none of the 
> breeders breed off of dead colonies.

Here, the term "Bond Method" takes credit for the fact that one cannot
easily breed from dead bees?  

But the phrase "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" deserves some
attention, as it was presented as if it offered lasting inherited traits of
value of value in bee breeding.  

If epigenetics was "transgenerational" for more than a generation or two,
then the phrase might have meaning, but we'll need many more generations to
be transited before we can call it "transgenerational".

I'll add some detail for those too busy with their bees to have read up on
this.

It's obvious that an environmental factor for one generation could damage
parents sufficiently to affect the phenotype of the subsequent generation.
There have been some very specific cases where this damage has been passed
on to the third generation, implying that biological processes are less-than
perfect.   Not surprising.

But others want to speculate well beyond the evidence.

The case for "epigenetics" is unconvincing on many fronts. Epigenetic
inheritance, as in histone modifications, methylated fragments of DNA and so
on, are TEMPORARY factors that may transcend a generation or two, but lack
permanence to make "evolutionary" change, or be a useful factor of value in
bee breeding programs.

For a specific example, methylated DNA, gets demethylated in every
generation.  Yes, it seems that the process is not perfect in each and every
generation, but none of the damage done has been shown to persist for more
than a few generations.  And that's a key point - "epigenetics" is most
often a process of environmental stress causing damage that results in
damaged offspring.  No one has shown any epigenetics that made even
temporary "enhancements" in the offspring. 

Also, biologists have shown that "epigenetic change", like methylation of
DNA, is actually coded for in the DNA, so what one has is nothing but a
normal alteration of the phenotype (the DNA) by normal boring nucleotide
mutations in the DNA. 

             ***********************************************
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