In article <[log in to unmask]>, Barry Birkey
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>You're absolutely right. It won't, but do you know why? It's the attitude
>that is stated above by several on this list who's apparent goal with
>anything new or "outside" their norm of thinking or practice must be
>squelched and "nailed" in such a way that one is viewed as a lunatic for
>stating their observations and findings.
If you mean me here Barry, I have already distanced myself elsewhere
from the theory that I 'nailed' this one as I do not consider that to be
the case. I have reported a comb pattern from an open swarm on a Juniper
bush. It does not meet the description offered. Period. Nothing more to
be read into it than that.
I have a Ukrainian guy working here this summer and he seems intent on
shinning 60 feet up a pine tree this weekend to cut down an open colony
which has been there since August. A few of the outer combs blew off in
the last gale here and again they do not appear to fit the model but it
is difficult to say just how they were attached after their fall from
that height.
He is interested in this too and says that the work is not particularly
original, having been looked at out there in the past. It actually
probably is original insofar as it is not likely that anyone outside
Ukraine has ever heard of it. Someone else tells me that it was also
investigated in the UK in the 1920's. No details though.
>So very interesting .... even though this comb position observation is new
>to everyone on this list, out side of one member from Texas, there have not
>been any questions asked, or questioning thoughts given that would build on
>what was presented or further the discussion. Allen Dick has attempted to
>point this out but the old attitudes prevail. I sure don't agree with
>everything that was presented in the positioning report and have lots of
>questions, but observations have been made that no one here has ever noticed
>which makes us all freshmen when it comes to this topic.
Not disputing that. The thing I have problems with, and have never seen,
is the concept of the 'special middle comb'. I need to see one of these
with my own eyes to believe it, as, except by consumption of wax in very
large amounts relative to the norm, it is geometrically impossible. The
imprint you see is actually the base of the side walls of the cells on
the other side of the comb and in a situation where the cells are one
third staggered relative to each other you are always going to get this
reversing pattern. Only by constructing a midrib of exceptional
thickness and then the Y being an imprint in the solid material could
you possibly get a situation where you have Y's with the same
orientation on both sides.
If the middle comb observation is wrong (NOTE:- I am not saying it IS
wrong at this time) then what price the elaborate scheme built up around
it being invariably correct or even of importance?
I also have problems with people trying to tell me I have problems that
I plainly do not, and offering solutions to these illusory situations. I
could go through the headings already used by Dee and offer
miscellaneous explanations of my own, but one I see that is plainly odd
is No.7. A requeening cell is a supercedure cell to us, and is not
actually constructed from the base of a worker cell in the main brood
comb. The queen lays in a specially constructed cell on the outer face
of the comb, and it is not affected in any way by the orientation of the
midrib. Sometimes there are more than one raised and I have for sure
seen them on both sides of the same comb. The only way the cell base
pattern might be influential is in the case of emergency cells, where I
would concede that large numbers of them can be found in concentrations
on a comb face. I always assumed this was down to larval age for
conversion and nothing more, the correct age ones tending to be found in
patches. The most I ever got of these was 88 on one Langstroth deep
frame several years ago, but these were distributed, basically in two
arcs, on BOTH sides of the comb. Queen had been killed by poor handling
at a previous visit.
If we decide to allow the guy to go up the tree I will take the digital
camera with me and get some shots. Especially if there is a special
middle comb to see.
Yes I am a skeptic, but I hope a pragmatic one. I am NOT stuck in a rut
and do take on new ideas readily. They must be good ones though before I
leap in wholesale. This one just does not 'read right' to me, but I will
be looking at ferals as often as available to see if I am wrong. Ditto
with cell size. I will have measured combs in at least 50 ferals by now
looking for anything indicative of the bees looking for smaller cells.
Apart from the excessively large 5.75 stuff I do not see much to support
the statement that my bees are on unnaturally large cells. If I am wrong
I will be first to admit it and start to utilise the new knowledge
myself.
One thing discovered during my picking out of larvae to see if chewing
out was varroa related (apparently not in our bees at least) was that in
many cases we found a pupa lying 'on its back' with tongue upwards was
in an infested cell, and in the same colonies, a pupa lying 'face down'
was in a clear cell. I have no idea at present how significant this is,
or even if it is of any importance at all, but in the last few days I
have been testing it and find it at least 75% accurate in predicting the
presence of varroa in the lower reaches of the cell. Could just be a
local phenomenon, could be nothing.
--
Murray McGregor
|
