Mark Hoguet said:

> To be truly effective wouldn't the "enlarged patterns copied from photos
> of flowers taken under UV light" have to be painted on the hives in a
> such a way that made them visible to bees but invisible to humans?

In spite of the folks who say "we have no idea what bees really see", and
then go on to report what fences their bees can see, thus sending us all
into a logic tailspin, I'll try to answer your question as best I can.

I don't feel that using "UV colors" in markers would be required.  Bees clearly
have the hardware to detect a reasonable range of colors, just as humans do.
While this hardware would force them to see red as they would black, the
ultraviolet range on the high end of the frequency scale would be "just another
color", with no special significance.  Is "red" special to humans just
because bees see it as "the same as black"?  No, of course not.
Its just another color to us.

Likewise, do dogs hear lower frequencies "differently" just because they
can also hear higher frequencies?  I dunno, but I whistle a different "tune"
to call each of my dogs, and they each hear and recognize their individual
summonses

> What I mean is, wouldn't these floral patterns have to be painted with
> a paint that can be seen only under UV light?

I think not.  I think that the only hurdle is to pick colors that contrast well
in terms of being "far apart" from each other in a strict "how many angstroms"
terms.  I've yet to read of any papers from anyone who used UV colors on
their markers

> (Is there such a paint?)

Sure there is.  They even have ink.  Posters in the 60s and early 1970s
often had "Black Light" features.  The Iron Butterfly "In Da Gadda Da Vida"
poster was a good example.

> Is a pattern that is visible to the human eye in natural light as effective a
> "drift preventer" as one that is only visible under UV light?

This would be an interesting experiment, but I'd guess that it would be
no more effective than any other high-contrast color choice.

> How important is the color that is visible to the human eye in attracting
> bees to the flower?

Dunno, but many flowers (every one? I'm not sure) that provide nectar and
pollen has some sort of UV component to its "display".  If this is irrelevant
to attracting pollinators, then why does the trait exist?  Common traits are
"common" because they are important to making more of the same plant.

> Do bees see a relationship between this color that and the pattern
> seen under UV light?

Dunno.

> Are bees initially attracted to the color that is visible to the human eye and then
> as they get closer to the flower guided in by the pattern that is visible under UV light?

Dunno, but this makes sense, given that the UV pattern would only be visible once
the bee is "above" the flower, rather than "beside" it.

> Or is the pattern seen under UV light all that matters to them?

Again, dunno.  But I doubt it.  Like I said, UV would be "just another color" to them.
They certainly aren't going to be fooled into thinking that the marker is a pollen or
necatar source regardless.  I guess this would be rather like putting a large neon
sign on my roof saying "Eat At Joe's".  It would be a valid way to identify my house
from the road at night, but it would be kinda "weird".

        jim