>Just because there is a lack of proof, does that provide 
>sufficient evidence to suggest they are from domestic colonies?

>>The burden of proof rests on you. In science, we deal with probabilities.

I'm with Joe on this one, Pete.  I think the "burden of proof" weapon is 
overkill in a friendly discussion where Joe's ideas are plausible and actually 
supported by your French example.

That French example has been very interesting to me since I first heard of it 
years ago and has increased my tolerance for ideas which are seem to run 
against my education and current knowledge but are not inconsistent with 
my experience.

Interestingly, the French example also lends some slight credibility to one of 
Dee's most unlikely claims: that here bees are a separate population and 
not AHB.  

(The counter to that-possibility  of  course is the fact that the Lusbys took 
full advantage of the vastly increased number of swarms after AHB arrived in 
Tucson, where they lived at the time, to rebuild their numbers from virtually 
zero.)

Anyhow, I think Joe is a careful observer and a careful chronicler and that
his ideas deserve respect even if there is no proof.  It would be interesting if 
the same people who examined the French anomaly were to take interest in 
Joe's region and convictions.

Each region is different and it is difficult to compare an urban to a rural 
situation or north to south or bush to mountain to desert or plains.

--- quote from William Gibson ---

… as I’ve said many times the future is already here 
— it’s just not very evenly distributed.
         

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm