> Do I smell an underlying premise that Nosema 
> Ceranae just arrived and needs special attention? 

Well, as one of the few who invested in bulk quantities
of Fumagillin every year a decade or more before is was 
fashionable to worry about Nosema, I can certainly echo 
what others have noted - we have a new or different
problem of late - Nosema that won't stay gone after a 
single treatment in spring.  No one reported this
in 2000 or 2001. 

To me, that says either:

a) The Nosema ceranae is "new to" or 
   "newly virulent in" many more hives.

b) The Fumagillin being sold now is not anywhere near
   as effective as the non-discontinued Mid-Con Fumidil-B.
   and we aren't getting control over the same old pathogens
   we've had around for a while.  Highly unlikely, but it 
   is scary to have only a single source, isn't it?

> I know we thought this at first but later evidence showed 
> that it's been here for years and moves hand in hand with 
> Nosema Apis

The data table on Page 7 of this document 
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/dedetails.pdf
the supplemental details for the 09/2007
paper in "Science", states that all bee samples 
taken from "CCD" hives tested positive for 
both Nosema apis and Nosema cerana, 
as did the "imported bees" (Australia).

Interestingly, the samples from hives judged to
not be showing signs of CCD showed as follows:

Penn State non-CCD samples showed Nosema Apis, 
but not Nosema ceranae.

Hawaii non-CCD samples showed Nosema ceranae but not 
Nosema Apis.

I don't think we need to worry about photos when
we can ID them with much more reliable tools than
eyeballs. :)

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