>> if one uses the global confirmation bias machines of search engines to look for a specific phrase, one can find all sorts of statements that appear to serve the purpose. 

> Interesting concept. Actually when I am searching I look for things related to what I am interested in, irrespective of whether they confirm or deny some assumptions I may or may not have. I think that's called science. 

Confirmation bias was evident from reading the cited articles, as none said anything even close to what they were incorrectly claimed to say, despite their inclusion of the keywords.  

The incorrect conclusion offered was:

>>> the only work I have seen where they have addressed
>>> the question of honey bee preference for nesting sites 
>>> all agrees on this point: they have no preference re: tree type.

None of the cited papers offered any data relevant to, or made any conclusions about "bee tree preference".

I detailed this before in this thread:

a)  The Ithaca paper had far too small a dataset 
b)  The CT paper's focus was on entrances.
c)  The Polish paper mentioned in the layman's press article cited found that the only significant factors were "trunk size" or perhaps "size" with "health
d) Then, a photo was offered of a single magnolia tree that had split at the junction of two branches, misidentified as "a pair" of trees.

The expression of "no opinion" by a bee researcher on an issue is NOT a finding of "no preference" by the bees.



 

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