Given the choice between recent observations of measureable metrics, and
older commentary mentioning only qualitative, (not quantitative) factors, is
there any question as to which is more useful?   

Simply put, it depends on what you are using it for. My interest in historical information is to gain better perspective, not to compare its validity to current thinking. However, the debate on the variables governing queen quality is far from settled, and at the very least looking at older sources reveals that it has been a problem for a very long time. 

Clearly, to get the best queens one would raise and evaluate them oneself. But the discussion is on what variables are introduced in the process of raising, shipping and introducing queens. Everyone I know has had excellent luck with shipped queens, and also bad results. So, why not look at all sources to try to narrow down what the problems are. 

I try to keep up to date on research, as everyone knows I do. I also pore over the old texts, also well known. It's all of use to me in trying to get a fuller understanding. It's easy enough to become too narrowly focused, many people are. Just as easy to wander too far afield. I spend very little time pondering the merit of what I do, what is more useful, etc. 

PLB

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