The discussion of whether it's the queen's antenna or forelegs and the
experiments involving removing portions thereof and the conclusions drawn as it
regards laying of fertilized (or not) eggs reminds me of the scientist who was
experimenting on the distance a frog can jump.

The scientist measured the jumping distance of a four legged frog by
screaming at the frog, "JUMP FROG, JUMP!"  After many trials the scientist
determined that the mean jumping distance of a four legged frog is twelve feet.
The scientist then chopped off a leg of his guinea pig, er, test frog and
yelled, "JUMP FROG, JUMP!"  After many trials the scientist  determined that
the mean jumping distance of a three legged frog is 8 feet.  Continuing with
the experiment, the scientist chopped another of the frog's legs and
shouted, "JUMP FROG, JUMP!"  and after many trials concluded that the mean
jumping distance of a two legged frog is three feet, and likewise determined
that the mean jumping distance of a one legged frog is one foot.  Taking the
experiment to it's logical conclusion the scientist chopped off the frog's last
leg and yelled "JUMP FROG, JUMP!".  When the frog didn't move the scientist
shouted, "JUMP FROG, JUMP!".  Unfortunately no amount of screaming, yelling or
shouting could get the poor frog to jump, at which point the scientist
concluded that all frogs with no legs are deaf.

My recollection from the latest edition of the queen rearing text by Laidlaw
and Paige (sorry, I don't recall the specific title) is that the mechanics
whereby a queen fertilizes an egg (or not) are fully understood, but the
triggering mechanism is mere speculation, including a possible realization on
the queen's part that she is laying in a worker or drone cell, possible
because she can SEE the difference.  So I wonder if queens with portions of
their antenna and/or forelegs removed might be blind.

Aaron Morris - thinking apologies are due to frog lovers.