It is nice to hear from Ruth again.
I always enjoy her style.

> Fischer, a staunch "dance language" (DL) supporter...

This characterization is inaccurate and misleading.
One can neither be a "supporter" or an "opponent",
as science is not a democratic process. "Support" 
for specific statements comes from vetted data, not 
from people.

I find it very revealing that the those who tend to
ofer arguments in support of "odor" are quick to 
categorize others into "supporters" and "opponents".  
Any questioning, any rational inquiry at all gets one 
classified as a "supporter".  Actual working researchers 
tend to use less polarizing language, such as "that data 
tends to support", or "that paper seems to contradict".

Don't forget the ironic quotes, and (of course) never
ever forget to call it a dance LANGUAGE.  Funny how
no one has ever suggested that dogs have language skills,
yet somehow, when a dog growls, lowers his head, and
raises the fur on his neck, multiple species (cats,
small mammals, birds, and even humans) get the message.

> Fischer assumes that these means that the remaining 
> 3 types of nectar are odorless.

Something that is not even detectable with SPME can
reasonably said to "not exist", given the detection
levels possible with SPME collection and GC/MS, as
it is common to detect chemical components at
the parts-per-trillion level.  

Further, odors tend to be the result of volatile organic 
compounds, fairly easy things to detect.  So, while the 
chemical components of "an odor" might be detectable with 
some future technology, it is reasonable to conclude that 
if we can't find them with SPME GC/MS, any compounds in a 
specific nectar that might generate "an odor" are far too 
faint to be useful in the sort of long-distance-odor-based 
navigation and foraging that Ruth consistently offers as 
an alternative to "dance" without ever having offered any 
sort of coherent explanation of how this scheme might work.

Also, let me repeat the citation:

  "Why Are Some Floral Nectars Scented?" (Robert A. 
   Raguso "Ecology", 85(6), 2004, pp. 1486-1494) 
   included in:
   http://www.dartmouth.edu/~irwinlab/papers/Irwin_et_al_2004_SF_Intro.pdf

The title of the paper clearly gives the impression that
only SOME nectars are "scented".  If only some nectars are
scented, it follows that the author got the impression that
other nectars are NOT scented as a result of his work.
(And leveling accusations of "confirmation bias" is not going
to work here, as this fellow says nothing about "dance" in
his paper.)

If there was a consensus that "all nectars are scented", the
review process prior to publication would have forced a change
to the title, making it something like "Why Are Floral Nectars 
Scented?".  Therefore, we can conclude from the title of the 
paper that the general scientific consensus is that not all 
nectars are scented.  (Input from botanists is welcome here.)

And while it is true that some flowers did not present enough 
nectar volume for the analysis, this was a minor footnote.

So, I will repeat:

So, what percentage of plants that provide nectar have an odor
at all?  No one seems to know at present, but even a small 
number of such plants present significant hurdles to any
proposed foraging and recruitment scheme where odor might be
claimed to be mission-critical to the process.


But Ruth avoided commenting on what I consider to be much more 
practical work done by William Towne of Kutztown University
cited here:
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0702d&L=bee-l&T=0&P=3632

My basic point was that if "odor" had any significant value in long or 
medium range foraging, Dr. Towne would have never seen any difference 
in either dances or directions flown by bees under overcast conditions,
and it would have been impossible for the bees to be "fooled" into
dancing, being recruited, and foraging in the exact opposite direction, 
away from the feeders.  

And I will repeat once again that of course bees utilize odor when
selecting flowers within a patch, once the bees have arrived at a
patch.

So, I'm not a "staunch 'dance language' supporter", I 
am merely staunch proponent of non-fuzzy thinking.

***********************************************************************************
* BEE-L is hosted at the State University of New York at Albany.                  *
* Please fill out the Colony Collapse Disorder survey at http://www.beesurvey.com *
***********************************************************************************