>> "PROBABLY reflects a long period of co-evolution between the mite and the bee"

I know this has been brought up before, but the scientific world likes
to use words like "the data, indicate, probable, etc". This does not
indicate a particular uncertainty but a way of thinking where
everything is tentative and open to revision. Unlike some thinking
which regards the Truth as a done deal, writ in stone. Science refers
to "a proof", not "the proof". Here's a fine example:

> Although the currently favored hypothesis is that the polydnaviruses are at least largely viral in origin, their unusual life "cycle" has led to the suggestion that the polydnaviruses may not be viruses at all but instead are an ingeniously engineered way for a wasp to manipulate its host.

He uses the following wiggle words: "currently favored hypothesis, at
least largely, suggestion, may not be, a way for, etc." all in one
sentence! Our author declines to say "I'm right and all those other
wannabees better check their brains at the door".

Here is the term "probable long association" used in its usual
context. They have the fossils, too, by the way.

> Preliminary evidence has been presented that the association between braconids and their viruses extends back in time at least as far as the initial divergence of the microgastroid complex of subfamilies (at least 60 mya based on fossils assignable to extant microgastroid genera collected from Eocene and Oligocene deposits). Given this probable long association between the wasps and viruses, it is not surprising that together they have evolved a rich variety of interactions with their caterpillar hosts.

-- 
"Molecular and Morphological Data Suggest a Single Origin of the
Polydnaviruses among Braconid Wasps"
Journal	Naturwissenschaften

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************