From Adrian, in response to Allen Dick's questions:
 
>I figured it was just a matter of time until we heard from you [Adrian] on
>this.<G>
>
>I remember reading 'The Bee Language Controversy' many years ago.  In
>fact I think I have a copy.  I've always found the debate
>fascinating, although I don't feel well enough informed to take a
>side.
 
   Unless I am mistaken, you refer to the 1971 book I wrote.  The message
of that book stands, but Patrick Wells and I published a more extensive
treatment of the subject in 1990, as referred to in the abstract sent this
morning (and below).
 
>I suppose, though that it is pretty important to us commercial guys
>to understand how bees find crops.
 
   I think it terribly important to understand the ecology of foraging
better.  However, with the advent of the dance language hypothesis,
interest in the importance of wind disappeared.  That is a shame, because
odors can only travel downwind.  On this score, we have retreated to the
Dark Ages.  I hope soon to write a review of the importance of wind in
colony foraging.  John Eckert, for example, published excellent data in the
early 1930s.  Unfortunately, his results were in tables, something
scientists seem loath to study.
 
>It is certainly beneficial to challenge the dance theory and you do
>a very good job.
 
   Thank you!
 
>Many people have a lot invested in believing the
>dance hypothesis. Being a sceptic, myself, I find it an interesting
>theory that adds to the mystery of bees.
>
>Here's my question:
>
>I wonder - just out of curiosity - what, in your thinking, is the
>explanation of the dancing that is readily observed, and what (if
>anything) is its function?
 
   Two pitfalls damage scientific efforts perhaps more than any other
factors.  (Each of us can only do experimentation on the basis of our own
indoctrination --- unless we realize the full extent of that
indoctrination.)  Those two pitfalls are anthropomorphism (giving human
attributes to the animal or plant we study) and teleology (assuming all
actions have a function --- usually as created by God).
 
   Whenever one uses the expression, "in order to," or an abbreviated form,
"to," function is implied.  As scientists, though, we must remain uncertain
about whether we will ever know a "function."
 
   We treated this problem fully in our book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY
(Excursus TEL: Teleology --- pp. 362-366).
 
>And another:
>
>What are the implications in practice?  I can see that if there is
>no dance language, that we should likey pay a lot more attention to
>making sure the bees can easily find the crop.  Am I right?
 
   I would say, "Right on!"  Aside from its publicity value, I cannot see
any real benefit for beekeepers of the dance language hypothesis in its
five decades of existence.  That says a lot in itself.
 
   By contrast, by understanding the role of wind in foraging patterns
better, wise placement of colonies can aid in pollination and crop
harvesting for beekeepers.
 
                                                        Adrian
 
 
***************************************************************
* Adrian Wenner        E-Mail   [log in to unmask]  *
* Dept.Ecol.,Evol.,& Mar.Biol. Office Phone    (805) 893-2838 *
* University of California     Lab Phone       (805) 893-2675 *
* Santa Barbara, CA  93106     FAX             (805) 893-8062 *
*                                                             *
*"Discovery is to see what everyone else has seen, but to     *
* think what no one else has thought." - Albert Szent-Gyorgyi *
***************************************************************