Adrian said:

> One cannot conduct an experiment to support the dance language
> hypothesis without using an odor cue...

I can think of a test that might help.
Maybe someone has tried this, but I've yet to read about it.

The basis for this possibly unprecedented breakthrough in
experimental entomology is (like most of my ideas) based upon
a very bad and very old joke:

        "My dog has no nose."

        "Poor dog. How does he smell?"

        "Awful!"


1)  Take a small observation hive of bees, catch all the adult bees,
    and remove their antennae, while taking care not to damage their
    Johnston's Organs.  (This technique has been used in  studies of
    bee responsiveness to airborne sound, so the actual surgery, while
    tedious, is possible, and does not appear to harm navigational or
    flying abilities.)

2)  If they can still forage and bring back the groceries without
    their odor-detecting hardware, then odor can thereby be
    demonstrated to play only a minor role, or, at best, is only one
    of multiple possible independent approaches to foraging.

3)  If they can't bring back any groceries, then odor is CRUCIAL
    to successful foraging, and only the question is "do they still
    travel to vectors indicated by 'dances'?" remains to narrow
    down if odor is merely a "final approach" tool or a complete
    "foraging system" in its own right.

Of course, I'm assuming here that:

a)  The bees will even attempt to forage after such surgery.

b)  That "antenna touches" are not mission critical to
    communication, even though such touches are observed
    in many (most? all?) dance sessions.

c)  That the taste receptors on the proboscis are alone enough
    for a bee to be able to judge sugar content of nectar, and
    thus make a valid "recruitment" decision.

d)  I'm likely forgetting lots of other things.  (I'm not going
    to maim a bunch of bees in cold blood anyway.  I have neither
    the stomach for it, nor steady enough hands.)

> Hence, one can never conclude from results obtained that the
> searching bees had not found the source by using odor

Down here in the salt mines of experimental hard science (where men
are men, and women are women, but particles are not always particles),
we are big fans of Karl Popper, who offered:

        Evidence in support of any theory should be presented
        as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.

        Any theory that appears to avoid "falsifiability" is either
      not yet well thought out, or was mishandled by the mail room,
      and should be forwarded to the cosmology department.
      (OK, I'm paraphrasing here, but that's what we do with them.)


                        jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::