> This doesn't necessarily imply a
> genetic component at all. There may be, but it is just as likely to be a
> serendipitous combination of traits, timing, or other factors.
>

Don't follow your logic Pete.  Traits are mainly due to genetics.  Timing and all other factors were the same for all colonies.

I said: serendipitous *combination of traits*, presumably as a result from different patrilines, in different proportions. For example, if you have a great baseball team, do you suppose that the children of one player will produce a great baseball team? I realize these email exchanges tend to be brief and liable to be misinterpreted.

By timing, I mean buildup of colonies, a very slight difference at the beginning can lead to a completely different buildup curve. By other factors, I mean for example, different task allocation, different success at finding forage sources, different strategies. Perhaps some colonies find and rob mite infested colonies whereas others don't. 

Everyone who has done longterm studies knows that no matter how hard you try to set up colonies to be identical, they aren't identical and soon become very different. This may be the result of all the factors I have mentioned. 

Colonies vary a lot and this variation cannot be based solely upon genetics, any more than the success of a great baseball team is solely based upon genetics. Chance, luck, skill, training, all enter into it.

PLB

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