> Allen, I'm no statistician.  I simply divide each mite count by the
> starting count.

Thanks Randy.  I appreciate the fact that you spell out your methods so
that we can either accept or debate them.

In this case, I have no comment.  I simply wanted to know what that
word, "normalize", might conceal.

It seems to me that some researchers hide behind a smokescreen of such
words, and when I asked you that the question, a researcher friend
replied irreverently off-list with one word, "massage", so I am not
alone in my skepticism.

As far as I am concerned, anything goes and long as the data and methods
are presented transparently.

I don't think there is any one right method and that is why I commented
on (bullied????)the attempt at standardization of bee research earlier.

Standardization can stifle innovation and furthermore, standardization
can be a stalking horse for groups intent on monopolizing funding
sources and excluding novel approaches.  I think we saw that with the
CCD campaign. Money and credits went to a select group with one thesis
and were denied to groups with other ideas.

Now that the CCD illusion has been milked dry, I note that we have a
new-and-improved 4-letter acronym for a new 'syndrome" and we are off to
the funding races again.

Anyhow, I see I am drifting away from the topic.

Thanks for being there, and saying it like it is.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html