Bill Truesdell said:

> "But then the typical research director will say the chances of
> getting anywhere with this 'Y-pattern on foundation' claim, or even the
> slightly plausible 'comb alignment' claims, are negligible, as the
> phenomenon is not expected from current theory.  Nail this furphy any
> time it surfaces!"

My business cards happen to say "Research Director", so let me point out that:

a)  There IS no "current theory" to apply here.
     No one has a "Grand Unified Theory of Bees".
     All that exists are little snippets of things that
     explain isolated points about bee behavior and
     biology.  There are massive areas of universal
     ignorance about bees.  "Housel positioning" could
     be right, or could be wrong, but it does not appear
     to be overtly contradicted by any existing
     consensus of understanding about bees.

b)  If this turns out to have a positive impact on bees in
     "managed" environments, the result would be similar
     to the story of "bee space".  Only after the practical
     value was shown would anyone try to write a rationale
     to explain WHY it works.

c)  This is not to say that "copying nature" will pay off
     every time.  What the bees do, and hence, appear
     to "prefer" in a natural setting is NOT always what
     is "best for beekeepers".  Prime examples would
     be upper entrances and Imrie Shims, both being
     items clearly not found in nature, but both being
     items that most beekeepers agree have positive
     impact.

d)  Don't ever expect a "new" idea to arrive neatly packaged
     with clear and compelling proof of both its validity and
     pedigree.  It takes more than one set of experimental
     results to convince the majority anyway, so any one
     offering cannot, in itself, "prove" much to anyone.

If we are going to play around with new ideas, no one needs to
"nail" one "every time it surfaces".  New ideas are like infants -
without constant care and feeding, they die.  There is no need to
be so aggressive.

I think the clearest thinking offered to date on this subject has
been Peter Borst's, when he said:

     "Let me get this straight, you heard about this idea in August, turned
     all the backwards combs around and a month later you say that "combs
     in backwards" is the source of most of the problems beekeepers have
     been having over the years?"

So, skepticism, yes.  Humor, certainly.  But hostile criticism is not required.


Also, Keith Malone informs me via e-mail that I screwed up every single one of
the "diagrams" in my prior posting.  He's right.  Regardless, the simplest claim
to test remains the claim:

        "Bees build "Housels" if not forced by foundation to do
             otherwise."

If this claim is true, it should be easy to find lots of "perfect Housels".
It seems clear that "perfect Housels" are not going to occur very often
by pure chance, given the number of possible "wrong" combinations.

        jim