>>> The researchers I have spoken with have always came back to 
>>> what we call Nosema ceranae being a variant of nosema vespula 
>>> and was contracted from wasps.

>> Would you mind telling us who thinks that?

> I can say that the researchers doing the nosema seminar at the 
> National meeting said that nosema ceranae was more similar to 
> nosema vespula than nosema apis.

While that is no answer to Peter's request to name names,  
it is true that there is a very close genetic 
similarity between Nosema ceranae and Nosema vespula.  
It is also true that there may be a very close genetic 
similarity between Nosema apis and Nosema bombi.

But Nosema ceranae has been around for a while on Apis ceranae,
so if Nosema ceranae "was contracted from wasps", this happened
some number of millions of years ago.  Not recently.

Just to clarify, my speculation, which seems to have prompted 
the discussion of comparative Nosema taxonomy, was that we may
have MISclassified one or both of the pathogens we are seeing
on such suddenly widespread basis in the USA.  We are calling 
them "Nosema apis" and "Nosema ceranae".  We may be wrong.
The more we find, the more does not match what we expected
to find, which is more evidence that we have "something else
entirely".

> When we get it right a few of us will tell what we have learned. 

I wish there would be fewer premature announcements of 
preliminary success followed by further premature announcements 
of yet something else that might be more of a success accompanied
by asides that the first "success" turned out to be a dismal failure.  
The net result is confusion and contradictory statements made 
within mere months of each other.  

I'd like to point out that the process of experimenting with 
this and that and the other in some sort of alchemist-like 
iterative trying of every substance in our Remco chemistry 
sets is not a very efficient way to attack these beasties.  
We need to "know the enemy" first, and we really aren't sure
which one is what one, or what one is who.  All we know is 
that it is some sort of Nosema, but there are lots of 
different types of Nosema.

> Until then we are all in a learning mode. I will say that some 
> of the methods which worked to control nosema ceranae in Spain 
> are not working in areas of the U.S. 

Yet another reason to make one think that perhaps what we are
calling "Nosema ceranae" here in the western hemisphere is 
nothing at all like what they are calling "Nosema ceranae" in Spain.

Also, yet another reason to avoid promoting "solutions" that
cannot be more than half-baked at best.  We need to get away
from the "ready... fire... aim..." approach.

> I think we can say for sure now thymol fed as a preventative 
> will not work.  I think one might say fumidil fed per label 
> does a poor job of preventing infection.

This seems a fairly obvious observation. :)
Yes, I agree that thymol or fumidil have no ability to prevent
FUTURE infections, but must be used only AFTER one has detected 
Nosema, in which case fumidil works, and thymol, maybe not so
well, or not at all.  I am not sure that fumidil ever worked
as a form of "preventative".  I think it cured cases of Nosema
that had remained undetected, and thereby was perceived as
a "preventative" by those who never checked for Nosema.

> Possibly feeding a solution of thymol will prove effective 
> in control of nosema ceranae in the future. 

Why would anyone think this, given that all we had was 
claims, and even the claims were retracted soon after?
I'd say that thymol is a dead horse, and that there is
no reason to engage in further necrophilic equine sadism.

> Right now it seems fumidil is the only option.  

The only verified and approved treatment, yes.

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