>Most domesticated species show evidence of a bottleneck following domestication. For example, crop plants such as maize, oats, rice and soybeans have lost 30– 90% of the genetic variation of their progenitors. Chickens, rabbits and silk moths have lost 50–60% of the genetic variation of their progenitors.

But chickens, rabbits and silk moths are not suffering 30-50% losses as far as I know.

>Reduced genetic diversity is a common feature of domesticated animal and plant populations that has been implicated as a cause of colony declines in honey bees. However, we observe an opposite pattern: managed populations have more genetic diversity when compared with their progenitors in E. and W. Europe. 

Does this not suggest that increased genetic diversity is a bad thing?  Does the US have the highest genetic diversity and the worst winter losses?

Does more genetic diversity suggest a reduction in those genes that really matter, i.e. the ones associated with locally adapted bees, and an increase in exotic genes that may not serve the bees well in that local environment?

Given that swarms normally fly no more than a quarter of a mile and drones up to 14 miles then under natural conditions, i.e. without man's intervention, are genetic pools not likely to remain 'local'?  Seems to me that it is both conceited and foolish to interfere with something that has worked so well for countless thousands of years.

Best wishes

Peter 
52°14'44.44"N, 1°50'35"W

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