> *Many* good points raised. It is hard to prove Einstein was right about 
> much. Perhaps in some things he was wrong. He said that, "Imagination is 
> more important than knowledge."  Do we attribute great altruism to a 
> mother duck...

An interesting and poetic post.

It brought to mind a number of things, among them this...

> But if bees come and go, generationally, and may be regressed 
> significantly in a relatively short period of time, or have other 
> characteristics altered in mere years...

We have discussed this question over the past decade and more and been 
unable to get a handle on it.  It occurs to me now that the term 
"retrogresson", later changed to "regression" may have obfuscated what what 
has been observed, and what is really happening, -- assuming something is 
since the effect has not been well studied by academia -- since the question 
is clouded also by the matter of AHB coming along and being somewhat 
difficult to identify.

With the discovery of epigenetics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics 
we now have a plausible explanation for what has been claimed by proponents 
of forcing bees onto smaller cell foundation, since the major objection has 
been that the idea of reducing bee size in any enduring way seemed 
illogical -- and even heretical in terms of the standard genetic theory at 
the time -- barring some genetic change in that direction, and that did not 
seem likely in one generation.

Epigenetics allows this to be, although it sheds no light on the question of 
the superpowers claimed for the diminished bees that result from crowding 
pupae into small cells.

> Ants the size of elephants, or visa versa, do not survive well. <snip> 
> ...failing health issues, that some termed, CCD, brought on by being 
> pushed to be giants, supplimented constantly...

"pushed to be giants" is the claim that has made the whole topic of 
downsizing bees subject to considerable skepticism by those who have studied 
the topic impartially and with reference to many sources, and those who are 
reluctant to read anything into the reference material beyond what is 
actually and plainly stated.

The actual history, read objectively, and current observations seem to 
suggest that bees will naturally build a range of cell sizes determined by 
the genetics of the bees and the history of the colony.

We know that bees that are poorly nourished during development are smaller.

We know that smaller bees build smaller cells.

We know that bees that are well fed, left to their own devices, over time 
tend to revert to a size that is in the range for their strain.  This is 
observed in nature and primitive hives the world over.

We know that foundation is unnatural and forces a single cell size on 
colonies placed on it.

We know that Root decided that 5.1mm was the ideal for the EHB in use at his 
time, but later changed that to 5.2mm.

We know that most current North American commercial sizes range upwards from 
there, but normally stop at about 5.4.

We know that European beekeepers often use much larger sizes and may have 
different EHB strains.

We know that the African bee is usually kept on 4.9mm cells in Africa. (Some 
exceptions)

We also know that the reason for cells larger than 5.2mm used in keeping EHB 
commercially is largely due to the need for using the same comb for brood 
and for honey storage and that smaller cells are harder to extract.  (There 
may be unintended consequences, but supersizing is not one, since studies 
have indicated that cells larger than the natural size for that strain have 
minimal effect on bee size.  Indeed, bees can be raised in the lab without 
using cells at all, and they are not the size of elephants).

At any rate, the point is that with Epigenetics, we have a credible theory 
for the observation that bees can be reduced in size by being forced onto 
smaller foundation and that the effect can persist for generations. This 
latter observation has not been documented AFAIK in controlled studies and 
the potential exists for confounding factors to intervene if natural mating 
is allowed.

All in all, it is an interesting topic and one that has shed more heat than 
light over time.  Maybe with this new perspective, we can get a better 
handle on it and maybe some researcher will determine whether bees can be 
predictably "downsized", and how far, plus how many generation the effect 
persists.

I hope I have not opened the floodgates here for opinion and rhetoric, but 
rather have opened a new approach to the question.

As I say, the superpowers ascribed to bees diminished by being forced onto 
unnaturally small cells for their genotype and phenotype should be a 
separate question

 

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