> Furthermore, Dave refers to "the perception among 
> beekeepers." This is not evidence, it is an unsupported observation, 
> based upon who knows what.

Would Dave Tarpy waste precious time and scare funding on chasing mere
"perceptions"?
I think not.
Why would anyone work on "Assessing the Mating 'Health' of Commercial Honey
Bee Queens" if there wasn't a serious issue?

> He doesn't have [evidence], and you claim to have it but do not present
it.

I am not sure what additional "evidence" you would like me to "present" that
would be more clear than my simple statement.
I specifically stated that I have not had even one 3-year-old queen in some
time, yet they used to be common in my 600-colony operation, as recently as
2002.
Jeff Pettis also says the same sort of thing to beekeeper groups, and when
he says it, the gray heads all nod in agreement.

It is not clear what your argument is here.
Are you claiming that you and/or your associates have productive 3 and
4-year old queens?

I agree that we do not know the exact reason, but there is a clear
difference that anyone with a notebook can verify.
What do the notebooks of others say about this?

> As I said, reports of diminished queen quality, supersedure, etc are not a
new thing.

But older queens that were productive over multiple seasons were once valued
and kept as "breeders".
Either one has some 3 and 4-year-old laying queens, or one doesn't.
It is just that simple.
If you don't have any, then you have clear evidence that "modern times" are
distinctly different from recent times, and not in a good way.
How can there be any argument over such a simple point?

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