On April 18th I posted a message on the network (both BEE-L and
SOCINSCT), in which I stated the following:  "...some of the regular
columnists for the beekeeping magazines these past few years have
steadfastly subscribed to the notion that truth is absolute.  In
particular, Tom Webster, Richard Taylor, Tom Seeley, Frank Eischen, and
Steve Taber have strived very hard to keep the dance language hypothesis
alive --- despite an ever-growing body of evidence at variance with that
hypothesis."  I also sent a copy of that message directly to Steve Taber
(just as I have openly communicated with all of the above people).
 
   In my April message, I indicated that I would publish the design of a
simple experiment that nearly anyone could conduct that would reveal the
validity of the assertions made by the above people in their columns.
Since then, the other two parts of the Taber contribution have appeared.
 
   In Part II of his series (May issue), Taber provided reference to a
research publication (Bogdany, F.J. and Taber, S.  1979.  "The significance
of odor for bees orienting across a canyon."  APIDOLOGIE.  10:55-62), a
paper from which he gained some of the information underlying his
assertions.  I have now had the opportunity to study that contribution as
well.  In my perusal, it has become apparent that the Taber contributions
collectively contain very little information about new developments of
these past two or three decades.  Nor are his statements internally
consistent.  For instance, consider the following items:
 
1)  In Part I (April issue), Taber wrote:  "...you can show that bees
communicate with other bees by selecting a bee and placing her on a dish
with sugar water or dilute honey far from her hive.  You will see that in a
few minutes other bees will arrive..."  To make that claim, Taber had to
ignore results provided in a 1973 paper by Friesen, already cited in
Taber's 1979 paper (co-authored with Bogdany).  Recruits do NOT begin to
arrive in a few minutes (another myth).  Taber also appeared unaware of
Excursus GT in our 1990 Columbia University Press book, which indicates
that the technique he described simply does not work (as I learned way back
in the late 1950s).
 
2)  Part I of the Taber series, again:  Taber wrote that they had put their
sugar solution onto paper toweling, but their published paper indicated
they had used filter paper (a BIG difference).  P. 133 of our 1990 book
indicates why one should use filter paper (paper toweling has an odor that
can aid searching recuits).
 
3)  Part II (May issue of ABJ):  "The male moth then flies toward the
source of [the female odor] in a zigzag pattern until he locates the source
of the odor."  and "...when the bee is flying, she cannot detect any wind
nor any odor plume..."  Taber could have benefited from a study of Excursus
OS of our 1990 book, a section that contains an update on the manner of
odor search by all flying insects.  The zigzag flight pattern Taber
described indicates an upwind search for odor.
 
4)  Part II, again:  Taber wrote:  "...if the wind is blowing...at 10 miles
per hour and a bee flies at 10 mph, she will not go anywhere if she flies
into the wind."  He could have studied p. 303 and 304 of our 1990 book to
learn that bees do not fly like airplanes - as I initially published back
in 1963.
 
5)  Part II, again:  "We put the bees on a ridge crest and trained them to
fly over a canyon to their feeding dish on a ridge on the other side of the
canyon, over a mile (1609m) through the air."  However, Bogdany and Taber
gave 1200m in their 1979 paper.
 
6)  "Part II, again:  "No recruits came to any of the scented syrup dishes
except the ones that the trained bees had given them directions to find by
their dances."  In their 1979 paper they claimed they had caught (and
marked) a large percentage of the searching recruits at a scented
observation station MIDWAY between hive and feeding place.  Why would the
searching bees stop and inspect a station midway to the "intended" goal if
they had followed directions?
 
********
 
   The editor of the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL has indicated that he will
consider publishing an article by me that will provide some balance to the
issue at hand.  That article will not dwell on the above muddled points.
Instead, it will move into the 1990s and beyond.
 
   The first section of the article (now nearly complete in draft form)
will clarify the degree to which searching bees rely on odor in their
searching for a food source exploited by hivemates, the second section will
elaborate upon some of the excellent evidence Friesen gathered in his early
1970s ingenious experiments (evidence ignored by Bogdany, Taber, and
virtually all other bee language proponents), provide new results from our
recent research on Santa Cruz Island (where we located well more than a
hundred feral colonies only by necessarily ignoring the dance language
hypothesis), and describe a simple experiment that anyone can do during a
nectar shortage to determine for themselves the importance of odor and wind
patterns.
 
                                                        Adrian
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adrian M. Wenner                    (805) 963-8508 (home phone)
967 Garcia Road                     (805) 893-8062  (UCSB FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA  93106
 
***********************************************************************
* "To cling rigidly to familiar ideas is in essence the same as       *
*   blocking the mind from engaging in creative free play."           *
*                                                                     *
*                                  David Bohm and F. David Peat 1987  *
***********************************************************************