Hi Allen,

> There is the problem.  When people anything does not need to be defined
> because we know what it is, I am pretty sure we don't.
> 

It is easily understood when keeping with the definition of words.

> > I will try to explain it as I see it. Others may see it quit different.
> 
> That is even less reassuring.
> 

I am not trying to assure anyone of anything, neither am I trying to confuse the matter. It is quit simple if you want it to be.

> A temporary phenotypic effect, I should think?
> 

Which is easily fixed by regression.

> > ...with genetics
> 
> Selection?
> 

Yes, bigger Queens, bigger bees, and bees that would draw correspondently perfectly drawn bigger worker combs were selected for in the past and still is by breeders.

> > ...and possibly fed artificial feeds (Sugar syrups and pollen substitutes)
> 
> A temporary phenotypic effect, I should think?
> 

Poor nutrition in my opinion will alter DNA just as proper nutrition can repair DNA. So yes it can be temporary but only by God given nutrition and not man made artificial feeds.

> > and allow the bees to feed on stores they themselves brought in by
> > naturally foraging plants and flowers.
> 
> Okay.  I think we all do that, so that point is moot.
> 

Some feed artificial out of tune with season.

> That assumes that that, in the "former condition", bees were on a "smaller
> worker comb size".  For most of history, and in many places, they were on
> natural comb.  To truly regress thus, we should not use foundation, I should
> think.  Or was there a golden age of beekeeping during the few years that
> EHB were kept on smaller foundations that is our ideal state?
> 

This needs another thread or subject line. Still needs shake downs until settled. Foundation used in the right season can help bring the size down faster and then foundationless will enable settling easier. I have no hang up on this, I do it both ways. there is more than one way to regress bees, but no matter how it takes time. Heck, it took time to progress them up to their present altered state.

> If there were no natural bees in that region, and all honey bees are
> imports, how to we then regress?  To nothing?  No bees?
> 

Funny!! I think you are being facetious. Perhaps PETA would agree with you but you know this is not the point of the conversation. We are talking setting the bees on a more healthy course and putting them on a comb size they may have been on before being altered bigger. Why turn this into a Merry-Go-Round where nothing is real. Joe Waggle once a while ago on a post on another list put it real about exactly what you are up to in this line of questioning, maybe he can remember how he put it? If this is the line of questioning that will continue I will have to decline answering anymore of this kind of nonsense.

> > and cell size preferred
> 
> Given a choice bees generally prefer to build *beside* the foundation, not
> on it, and a variiety of sizes and shapes, all on the same comb.
> 

Yes, is this a secret? Of course bees can build what they prefer this is what I was stating.

> Okay, so how does more breeding, more manipulating, more transporting, and
> providing different man-made hives with restrictive foundation come into
> this?
> 

Bees were being kept on Langstroth equipment before man decided to alter the bees size. Why do you have this mind set on all this equipment when as a beekeeper you do not need this stuff. Get off and get on with it Allen. Just where does all this stuff come into it? What is your hang up? I do not have these addictions or mind sets but then again I am a young 49 years old and I have time to work.

> > No, beekeepers can alter them back to the altered state again as was done
> > in the past and is still being done today.
> 
> So, what is the term for that? -- "progressed" bees?
> 

Yes, and progress may not be stopped and is not always a good thing. It is quit evident to me that this progress of keeping bees is not going to be stopped by mainstream beekeepers and this is why I can care less if a beekeeper regresses or not. I was simply trying to answer your questions I do not want you to regress your bees.

> How can they regress to their natural state with you getting in the way of
> their natural process and introducing your prejudices?  (I'm assuming you
> must have some, since we all do).
> 

Yes I do and I never said I did not. Life is not and never will be perfect, but I can get it close to the mark if you do not mind.

> It took me fifteen years to discover that I had no talent for writing, but I
> couldn't give it up because by that time I was too famous.
>             -- Robert Benchley
> 

This is not a writing contest, I think we are trying to talk bees by writing.

You yanked a big chain just like you planned I hope your satisfied. Regression of bees is not as complicated as your trying to make it Allen.

 . ..   Keith Malone, Chugiak, Alaska USA, http://www.cer.org/,
c(((([ , Apiarian, http://takeoff.to/alaskahoney/,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akbeekeepers/ ,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Norlandbeekeepers/ ,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ApiarianBreedersGuild/

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---