> newer work by Oldroyd & Yagound

Citation?  
DOI?
Date?
Anything?

Fragmentary quotes pasted without a citation to the work cited are of no help, these papers often take DAYS to slog through before one can summarize them adequately in plain English.

> "This view has now been challenged by studies that did not find consistent associations..."

The word "challenged" means what it says - it does not mean "replaced" or "refuted".

> Comment: Science is constantly in the process of being revised. 

"Challenged" also does not mean "revision".

Oftentimes, review papers that look at a wide range of other people's work without doing any new work of their own compare fish with foul, equate studies with widely divergent methods and draw conclusions that are not based upon hard tangible metrics, such as clear dose-response to individual chemicals.

If merely feeding a worker larvae more of the same food resulted in a queen, this would be childishly easy to prove very elegantly with nothing more than a Nicot kit and the patience to harvest brood food from worker cells, and add that food to the prospective human-raised queen cell.  The fact that this simple and obvious approach has never even been attempted tends to indicate that there are more subtle things at work in making a queens.

But I could comment on the blue sky and get an argument.

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