> My question, however, is not what initiates supersedure, but rather why does it seem that colonies are not superseding as well as they used to (if that is indeed the case).

That's what I have been talking about, the initial observation that X number of colonies won't start queen cells, even though their queen is failing. That's where it seemed to tie in to the report about capensis pseudo queens being able to commandeer scutellata hives. Apparently a queen can suppress queen rearing and worker reproduction, even though she is not a viable queen. 

Which makes no sense, evolutionarily, of course. What would make sense is if pheromonal control and the queen's ability to maintain egg laying are not directly coupled. They happen to have about the same duration, so that when one starts to fail, so does the other, the bees pick up the cues and raise a daughter queen. 

We have ample evidence that a leader can be persuasive but at the same time lack all the qualities of a good leader. The appropriate course of action would be to replace the failed leader, before the entire colony goes down the crapper. But the leader keeps the horde in thrall. There is no logical explanation for this phenomenon, so far as I know.

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