Allen writes
>Anyhow, you are wrestling with this now, and I hope you don't get too muddy.
>
>Thanks for keeping an open mind and pursuing the truth in this.

Why, thanks. I do try to stay open, but there are facts to be dealt
with. If one no longer believes in verifiable facts, one is lost.

me:
>it has never been shown that *any* bees did poorly on this foundation
>and were therefore weeded out. That is pure conjecture.

Allen:
>Has this matter been examined?  If not disproven, then it is possible.
>Actually, however the reverse is what is suggested: that the ones which did
>best on the larger foundation were encouraged.

Sure it has. Just like everyone is saying, bees were given larger
cells than normal. I don't dispute this! They didn't mind and the
bees *were* a little bigger. But this characteristic did not become
incorporated into their genes, is what I am saying.

me:
>  The ratio of "selected" bees to non-selected has always been small.
>  The majority of queen bees are freely mated with drones from hundreds
>  of unknown sources. Any real genetic change in the characteristics of
>  honey bees requires natural or artificial isolation.

Allen:
>This is true in some areas and not in others.  There is evidence that local
>populations select themselves in areas where feral bees are common and that
>these feral populations tend to somewhat stubbornly retain their
>characteristics

I am not simply talking about feral populations. Even though many
beekeepers buy queens, not all do. Many never requeen, some use
bought queens only for increase, some raise their own, some requeen
every hive every year (and a lot of these get superseded). If there
are 200 million hives in this country, how many are headed by bought
queens? Anybody want to guess? (I don't know, but I would bet much
more than 50% are headed by queens raised by the bees themselves and
mated to the local population.)


--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>