> The size of queen bees has never been correlated to the size of the
> worker. The size of the workers was never evaluated by breeders...
Does this mean there is no correlation, or that it has never been studied?
Common sense would lead one to suspect that there is a relationship. If
genetically larger stock tends to larger queens, then selecting large
queens -- a universal practice -- would select for larger stock. N'est-ce
pas?
> and it has never been shown that *any* bees did poorly on this foundation
> and were therefore weeded out. That is pure conjecture.
Has this matter been examined? If not disproven, then it is possible.
Actually, however the reverse is what is suggested: that the ones which did
best on the larger foundation were encouraged.
> The ratio of "selected" bees to non-selected has always been small.
> The majority of queen bees are freely mated with drones from hundreds
> of unknown sources. Any real genetic change in the characteristics of
> honey bees requires natural or artificial isolation.
This is true in some areas and not in others. There is evidence that local
populations select themselves in areas where feral bees are common and that
these feral populations tend to somewhat stubbornly retain their
characteristics -- if I understand what T.M. sent us each recently. This
correlates with what Dee and others claim. Feral populations are hard to
change. Actually, I think you just said that too -- sorta.
> >* The EHB natural range reportedly went as low as 4.9 mm, although 4.9
> > was at the extreme low end of the range observed...
> I think they are important. Crane gives the range of European honey
> bees as 5.1 to 5.5 and the median at 5.3...
I went through a lot of stuff on BioBee (
[log in to unmask] ) and came away less convinced of the
range given above and more willing to give some credence to the numbers I
gave. I may have gotten overcome by all the material and confused, since
there are many red herrings and much misinformation in the discussions
there, but I seem to recall a number of credible sources being quoted to
move the lower end of the range down to include 4.9mm.
Maybe someone else with more time will assemble all that info and present it
concisely here?
> >Others, elsewhere in North America and Europe are attempting to replicate
> >the work with standard off-the-shelf EHB, with varying success.
>
> Who? I have not seen anybody submit any results of any study where
> there is a side by side comparison of bees on large cells and small
> cells. Most of the people that are using small cell foundation, at
> least the ones who have talked about it on this forum, are trying to
> convert all the hives, on the assumption that it will work.
That is the problem, and moreover not all thsoe trying small cell are
telling the whole truth about what they are doing.
> Furthermore, it is the Lusby's contention that the bees have to be
> "retrogressed" to a small size. I don't see how the idea that
> European bees were somehow smaller than they are now can ever be
> proved. One would have to do careful measurements on specimens
> collected a hundred years ago. Perhaps there are such specimens, but
> I am afraid that the people capable of doing such work do not see any
> real justification for it.
True, but there is considerable writing from that time and much of it is
quoted on BioBee. I see the historical aspect to be a bit of a red herring
though -- a distraction from the real issues.
> There are a least two reasons why this theory could not be receiving
> attention of mainstream scientists. 1) They are prejudiced against
> non-traditional approaches. 2) They believe is lacking in merit.
Exactly. I think, however it is, but no one wants to get involved with
such a tar-baby.
Both the above are valid reasons, but there are other possible reasons too.
3). The problem is complex and perhaps indeterminate. It will not stay
still to be studied, and the waters are already muddied.
4). The question might turn out to be moot.
6). Some of the people involved get hot fast and the matter gets political
7). Studying this might involve contradicting and disproving a favourite
colleague or mentor and reversing the current trends in bee thought --
a perilous course for anyone wanting a good job in this rather small
industry again. (Right, Adrian?)
6). There is easier and less controversial work to do, and if the whole
thing proves to have merit, then the mainstream people can
comfortably work on it.
Anyhow, you are wrestling with this now, and I hope you don't get too muddy.
Thanks for keeping an open mind and pursuing the truth in this.
The truth is out there.
allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/
|
