>In conventional beekeeping these are referred to as races or >sub-species, such as the Italian, Carniolan, etc. From what you have >said, you seem to be saying that "mongrels" are a bad thing, when >compared to their opposite -- an unmixed type. > >Do you have such a type, or race, and where did it come from? This may be a suitable stage in the discussion to point out that, in the very best studied species (_Homo sapiens_), the attempt to define races *in detail* turns out to be a failure. The most educated, cultured nation gave this issue very high priority 1923-45 but could not construct coherent intelligible definitions & rational implementation protocols for breeding the master race and suppressing e.g. the 'sub-human Slavs'. For what may well be the 2nd-best-studied sp, _A. mell._, I believe we are seeing the corresponding attempt bogging down in quicksands which are only in part caused by lack of scientific method in some participants. I suspect they are real quicksands of logic. It looks to me as if the bee races are no clearer than, say, Polynesian; and having lived in the biggest Polynesian city for 3 decades and grappled with racism which is being fomented on a large scale by the government, I am surer than ever that human races, while not meaningless, are pretty vague. Are the bee races or subspp any clearer? I do suggest that the phenomenon of *hybrid vigour* is real; i.e. inbreeding shouldn't be overdone. But what is pure and what is mongrel is a question the Germans couldn't cope with, and neither can I, so let's not try to make too much of it. In the spirit of conciliation R