>... From our data we can offer NO support for the
> genetic hypothesis of DD.

No support from said researcher means little as few researchers agree on 
many hypothesis!

I think Rothenbuler peer reviewed the paper as did Renderer. The genetic as 
a possible cause for DD in fact came from Rothenbuler ( a world renown bee 
geneticist).

One sentence out of 28 pages proves little. it was common in those days to 
get all hypothesis peer reviewed. Dee Lusby's articles were all peer 
reviewed and had the peer reviewing person name AFTER the authors. I suspect 
Rothenbuler felt the opinion of the author should be passed on.

peer review example:
Eric Ericson's name was after the Lusby's in the Lusby's article and he 
constantly spoke out against small cell. Yet he peer reviewed the article 
and added his name. All the peer reviewer does for the most part is to make 
sure the hypothesis of the author could be a possibility as a person 
knowledgeable on the subject.
Peer review adds creditability to research papers however are not always the 
views of the peer reviewer.

Bee magazines used to peer review certain articles. The editor would simply 
send the article to a person qualified and the person would either add his 
name or reject the article and if happened most times the editor would 
reject the article also or ask for certain changes.

Of course only Tom Renderer remains I think and could answer if he simply 
peer reviewed or actually composed the paper. Tom could be contacted but the 
general last word on DD was that it was basically a genetic problem. Wilson 
in his ABJ articles posed many possible scenarios but when Rothenbuler came 
into the picture the final answer became genetics.

Which without further research could not be proven.

Deknow.
Researchers of those days always left an out when discussing a problem. The 
were taught in college to use certain words to give a way out if new 
research proved their position wrong.

Some of today's researchers could learn a valuable lessen from the early bee 
researchers. Then the article in "Science" would not have been such an 
embarrassment to a few.

bob 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************