>	The upsizing of bees is documented all over the magazines and
>literature of the period....

I have read the so-called supporting literature and I failed to see any
proof that bees were permanently altered in any way. You can get slightly
bigger bees using larger celled foundation, but the effect is superficial
and not lasting. People have measured the cells from bees in frameless hives
around the world and have established the natural cell sizes. These numbers
simply don't support the whole "upsizing" theory. 

Be that as it may, there is no reason to suppose that these slightly larger
bees are in any way disadvantaged. More likely, bees are larger in northern
climates because it provides some advantage in over-wintering ability. If
there is a gradient from smaller to larger correlated with warmer to colder
climates, then it no doubt arose through natural selection, because these
bees were more well suited to their environment.

I have never said that human being have not done deleterious things to the
honey bee species; they have. Keeping of hives in large apiaries, moving
them to other continents, medicating, breeding for criteria like pretty
color, all these have taken a toll on the health of the species. And these
practices aren't going away. 

We need to counter-balance them with intelligent practices. IPM, for one.
This is a technique where controls are based on an assessment of need, and
non-chemical methods are tried first, hard chemicals last. The breeding of
resistant bees is another area which needs to be supported. Putting health
issues before all others seems to be the key. 

I simply think it is an error to allow theories to become so large that they
overshadow the reality of the situation. Beekeepers in the north have
problems that southern beekeepers simply don't have. And for people to boast
about their successes and belittle the efforts of others is wrong, unless
they've walked a mile in their shoes.

pb

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