> I will add my voice to this "discussion", if only to point out
> that this is a clear and compelling example of how new "ideas"
> can be poorly treated on Bee-L.

These 'new' ideas are being treated very levelly on BEE-L, but they are not
being given a free ride and instant acceptance.  As recently discussed, we
have to maintain credibilty with researchers too, and paraphrasing their
comments and then attributing these words to them is not a good way to do
that.

New ideas should be considered, questioned and analysed.  That is what we
are doing on BEE-L. We are listening and comparing what Bob is saying to
what several of us -- Aaron was sitting beside me -- heard in the same
amazing talk given by the same person in a different place several days
earlier.

Maybe you came in late to this thread -- it started a long time
back --  but Bob said that the comment on which he is hinging his claim was
made *after* the prepared talk, not in the prepared talk.  Another person
there at the same time differs with him on a crucial detail.

However, this topic is not at all new here, it has been covered before.

For the record: no one disputes the fact that unusual levels of thelytoky
have been demonstrated in some Arizona bees, nor the fact that thelytoky is
a known major characteristic of capensis.  What is disputed is how long the
tendancy to unusual levels (for EHB) of thelytoky has been observed in
Arizona bees -- and what explains it.

I have personally been to Lusbys and to the ARS lab in Tucson and discussed
this matter with several people at both places.  The question of DNA proof
has been brought up and AFAIK, one of the puzzling aspects is that so
far -- AFAIK -- *no* DNA evidence has supported the idea that the Arizona
bees are capensis or part capensis.

> Bob is a man of good character, and is not subject to hallucinations.

Bob is a friend of mine AFAIK.  I am not denegrating his character.  I
don't know anything whatsoever about his hallucinations or lack of them.
I'll have to take your word on that unless Bob thinks this rather personal
matter is a relevant point and wants to jump in here.

> Further, what he heard has been verified by others.

What he says he heard has been disputed on one crucial point.  I believe
that in the talk I heard, G D-H did not deny a comparison to capensis, but
never suggested that these bees are actually -- partially or completely --
capensis.  Capensis genes were never mentioned.

> Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman is also a person of good character

That is not in dispute.

< and has no history of mental illness.

I have no knowledge either way in this regard, nor do I consider it
relevant.

> Further, she most likely made her presentation from prepared notes.

As I said, the supposed quote, was after her prepared talk and was
interpreted differently by BEE-L people present.

> Connect the dots.

I don't know what you see, but I see reasonable speculation that has not
been able to be proven and has to be treated as an interesting unproven
(and politically sensitive) hypothesis.

For what it is worth, I personally think that the idea is quite reasonable
and is as good as -- and possibly better than -- many others, including the
native American bee idea.  In fact, it is -- IMO -- one of the better
ideas.

The only problem is that G D-H did not say that capensis genes have been
found in the Arizona bees, and as far as I can tell carefully avoided
saying so.   Maybe they are, and she cannot or will not say so?  She has
definitely said that the traits are capensis-like, although in my
recollection, she deliberately did not dwell on that point.  Dragging her
name into this without having a direct quote seems to me to be unfair to
her.

In light of our recent discussion of BEE-L and its relationship to and
treatment of researchers, I am trying to be sensitive to their position.
We had an episode some time back in which Dr. Erickson's name came up in
some questionable statements and I want to be sure any attributions of
statements and actions to researchers are accurate and corroborated if
there is any doubt.

That is the entire issue here.  The capensis idea itself is not unwelcome
or even preposterous.  It is possible that these characteristics could
exist or arise independently from capensis, but the connection suggested a
common origin.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

There are other possibilities too.  The recent apparent evolution of fire
ants gives us another phenomenon for comparison.

There are many possibilities, and discussing them is fun.  BUT when someone
attributes something controversial to a scientist, he is going to have to
prove that she said it the way he heard it.

Bring on the ideas.

allen