Dear All

To reply to the comments & questions of Dee Lusby:

> So you are saying there are "good" capensis and "bad"
> capensis then.
> Could you explain the difference here between the two for
> better understanding?

I use these terms only with respect to the effect capensis have on
other bee races; within the capensis population per se, they are all
"good" capensis. That is, none of the "capensis problems" occur.

With respect to other races, I am using the terms "good" and "bad" as
follows: "Bad" capensis will cause takeovers, invasions and colony
losses, as well as the workers producing by thelytoky. "Good" capensis
will not cause the takeovers, invasions and colony losses, but the
workers will produce by thelytoky. This is a "good" trait as it is a fail-
safe for queen losses.

Some researchers on the South African Capensis Problem believe
there are indeed "good" and "bad" capensis, as described above.
Others, including myself, believe that there are only "bad" capensis, to
lesser or greater extent. That is, all capensis will cause the negative
effects on populations of other races, but this will vary in extent.

Hence, I consider it most likely that the thelytoky that is being seen in
Arizona is non-capensis thelytoky.

> HOw did your "bad" traits override your "good" capenis
> traits in S. Africa? You talk about different periods of
> this happening before. How has the situation changed over
> the years? What is different now compared to earlier
> periods with your small black bees, that you cannot correct
> the situation now?

I think what was different this time was that the "problem" was in
commercial apiaries, while in all previous occasions in was only in
research apiaries. As simple as that. On the previous occasions, when
capensis problems became severe, the SINGLE affected research
apiary and colonies in the vicinity were destroyed by the
beekeeper/researcher - end of problem. This time, when it was first
noticed, the capensis problems were in dozens if not hundreds of
commercial apiaries, spread over hundreds of kilometres - and simply
could not be contained.

> This I find strange! I would equate this to parasitic mites
> and accompanying secondary infections. Also change of

When the capensis problem started, we did not have either tracheal or
varroa mites in the country. These days, as you say, the brood of
colonies in the latter stages of varroa infestation resembles the brood
of capensis laying worker colonies.

regards

Mike Allsopp