Peter Edwards wrote:

>> Ascribing a genetic change in the bees in essence says that you can
>> go from a set DNA sequence to a new one in two generations and flip
>> right back in the same >amount of time. And the queen is changing
>> the sequence!

> I must admit that, until this evening, I agreed with this completely.
> However, this evening I watched a programme in
> the 'Horizon' series on BBC2 that seems to show that the experiences
> of one generation can indeed be transmitted not just to the next
> generation, but to subsequent generations.

I agree with this completely and still stand by my original post. It is
not an either/or situation. Bees can learn and that learning can be
passed to others. There was a recent study (that made the news and I was
going to post a link to it but it was not permanent) about bees having
more ability to learn than was thought possible. The BBC program fits
this fine. Experience (learning) is one thing, shifting a DNA sequence
is quite another. The former is transitory (change the stimulus that
promoted the behavior) the latter is set and difficult to change. If it
were, we would all be in trouble. Most changes ascribed to a DNA change
are not changes to DNA but different expressions of what has been there
all along. When human DNA is looked at, there are long strings that seem
to have no apparent use, but got there for a reason a long time ago.
They may still have a use, but there has not been pressure to express it.

Varroa resistance is classic. The mites develop resistance, but, remove
the pesticide, and they revert to their more stable form and are again
treatable. Their DNA has not shifted, since they revert, but the
pesticide selects for specific DNA expressions. If there was an actual
change in DNA, then you should find that resistance is now the norm and
Varroa would not revert to their previous state.

The population of any species has the "same" DNA that will identify them
as a species, but they also have "different" DNA since the
characteristics of each individual in a species can be different. So you
can select within a population for desired traits by changing their
environment. However, no matter how hard you try by throwing it into the
air, you will not make a flying pig that pollinates flowers. The basic
DNA of a pig defines the pig. But you can have a wide variety of pigs
with varying characteristics. You can select within those characteristics.

A move to small cells is a physical change, not a behavioral change,
even though the shift may cause the emergence of a behavior that is not
triggered with larger cells. The behavior is there all along, but what
stimulates that behavior may not be triggered by large cells and may be
with small cells. Dennis' studies match this nicely. If DNA were
involved, the shift back to large cells would have no effect on the
bees.  But they are no longer able to handle Varroa. They are not a new
generation of bees but are the same bees, only cell size has changed.
There were studies on AHB that showed the same. They are not able to
handle Varroa on larger cells. Which is interesting, since we can have
AHB involved in small cells.

With small cells, we are not teaching them or changing their DNA, we are
just changing foundation cell size and "forcing" the bees to accommodate.

Which is not unlike my trying to get into my old uniform without busting
the seams and have buttons pop off and injure innocent bystanders. That,
truly, is an unnatural act. Fortunately, my DNA is not affected. At
least I hope not, but the tight pants....

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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