>I said:

> > If insect response to neonicotinoids is similar to the nicotinoid
> response by vertebrates (and why not),
> Peter says:
> Why not is because they are insects, not mammals. There is absolutely no
> reason to suppose that it would be the same.
> Well Peter, you are wrong.


Actually, Peter is right!  You asked the question "and why not."  Pete
answered it correctly--there is no reason to assume that the responses will
be the same.  They are in fact considerably different, which you should
know, since you cite Yamamoto and Casida.  The nAChR's are distributed
differently in insects, are molecularly different than those in
vertebrates, and the neonics are specifically built to produce different
responses.  The reader doesn't need to read Yamamoto--you can simply read
Wikipedia to find that:
"These receptors are located in both the central and peripheral nervous
systems of mammals but are limited to the CNS in insects.
Because most neonicotinoids bind much more strongly to insect neuron
receptors than to mammal neuron receptors, these insecticides are
selectively more toxic to insects than mammals.
The [imidacloprid] molecule shows weak affinity to mammalian nAChRs but
strong affinity for insect nAChRs. Furthermore, the uncharged molecule can
penetrate the insect blood–brain barrier, while the human blood–brain
barrier filters it"

I'm not going to even respond to your tart criticisms of Peter's other
polite and accurate statements.  We are not here to be insulted--we are
here for thoughtful discussion!

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
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