> Randy, I think it was either Don Nelson or Cam Jay that had a paper out
> on the size of the mesh used for banking and the damage to tarsal claws on
> the queens feet.

Probably you are referring to 
Jay, S. C. 1965. Reducing queen losses in package bees by using queen cages of large-mesh wire gauze. J. apic. Res. 4(l): 35-38.

I don't have that one, but Sue Cobey writes

Jasinski (1987) and Woyke (1988) reported that
workers bit the tarsi, antennae and wings of banked II
queens. Injuries were also reported to the ariola (foot
pads) of the II queens.

Honeybee queens deposit foot-print pheromone while
walking on combs. Lensky and Slabezky (1981) suggested
that this pheromone in conjunction with the mandibular
gland pheromone inhibits the construction of queen cells.

If the ariola of II queens are damaged, possibly lower
levels of this pheromone may contribute to the lower
survival rates reported in these queens. To provide more
natural conditions pre- and post-insemination, virgins
should emerge individually in nucleus colonies.

I think these reports corroborate the problem of banked queens is not the screen but the biting bees. Queens that are not banked or shipped appear to have a far lower rate of supersedure.

reference

Al-Qarni, A. S., Smith, B. H., & Cobey, S. W. (2003). Performance evaluation of naturally mated and instrumentally inseminated honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) queens in field colonies. Pakistan J Biol Sci, 6, 1476-1481.

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