Jerry, I thank you for your comment:
 My point is, people don't read the older articles.  They read a citation,
and they re-cite, with nary a glance at the articles that they are citing -
after all, lots of other people also cited those articles.

I see the above again and again in bee research papers and books.  I
consider it to be a poor reflection upon the reviewers for not doing their
job.  I often back-check supposedly supportive citations and find that they
do not support the claim by the citing author in any way whatsoever.  It's
obvious that the citing author read only the abstract (if that), but
certainly didn't study the full paper, or was so biased as to be blind.

There have long been excellent researchers who, even with the crudest of
technology, performed well-designed experiments, and who made keen
observations.  Bee biology has not changed in the interim.  Those of us who
spend the time to read the "old stuff" often find "gems."

For an example of a "gem," G.F. White published a USDA report titled
"Nosema disease" in 1922 -- readily available from Google Books.  It told
us nearly everything that we needed to know about *Nosema apis*, and by
extension, *N. ceranae*.  Yet in the over 7000 papers published with the
words "Nosema ceranae,"  this landmark study was cited only 31 times, and
generally only most briefly.

Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
530 277 4450
ScientificBeekeeping.com

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