>In conventional beekeeping these are referred to as races or
>sub-species, such as the Italian, Carniolan, etc.  From what you have
>said, you seem to be saying that "mongrels" are a bad thing, when
>compared to their opposite -- an unmixed type.
>
>Do you have such a type, or race, and where did it come from?

        This may be a suitable stage in the discussion to point out that,
in the very best studied species (_Homo sapiens_), the attempt to define
races *in detail* turns out to be a failure.  The most educated, cultured
nation gave this issue very high priority 1923-45 but could not construct
coherent intelligible definitions & rational implementation protocols for
breeding the master race and suppressing e.g. the 'sub-human Slavs'.
        For what may well be the 2nd-best-studied sp, _A. mell._, I believe
we are seeing the corresponding attempt bogging down in quicksands which
are only in part caused by lack of scientific method in some participants.
I suspect they are real quicksands of logic.
        It looks to me as if the bee races are no clearer than, say,
Polynesian; and having lived in the biggest Polynesian city for 3 decades
and grappled with racism which is being fomented on a large scale by the
government, I am surer than ever that human races, while not meaningless,
are pretty vague.  Are the bee races or subspp any clearer?
        I do suggest that the phenomenon of *hybrid vigour* is real; i.e.
inbreeding shouldn't be overdone.  But what is pure and what is mongrel is
a question the Germans couldn't cope with, and neither can I, so let's not
try to make too much of it.

In the spirit of conciliation

R