Bill Truesdell said:
> "But then the typical research director will say the chances of
> getting anywhere with this 'Y-pattern on foundation' claim, or even the
> slightly plausible 'comb alignment' claims, are negligible, as the
> phenomenon is not expected from current theory. Nail this furphy any
> time it surfaces!"
My business cards happen to say "Research Director", so let me point out that:
a) There IS no "current theory" to apply here.
No one has a "Grand Unified Theory of Bees".
All that exists are little snippets of things that
explain isolated points about bee behavior and
biology. There are massive areas of universal
ignorance about bees. "Housel positioning" could
be right, or could be wrong, but it does not appear
to be overtly contradicted by any existing
consensus of understanding about bees.
b) If this turns out to have a positive impact on bees in
"managed" environments, the result would be similar
to the story of "bee space". Only after the practical
value was shown would anyone try to write a rationale
to explain WHY it works.
c) This is not to say that "copying nature" will pay off
every time. What the bees do, and hence, appear
to "prefer" in a natural setting is NOT always what
is "best for beekeepers". Prime examples would
be upper entrances and Imrie Shims, both being
items clearly not found in nature, but both being
items that most beekeepers agree have positive
impact.
d) Don't ever expect a "new" idea to arrive neatly packaged
with clear and compelling proof of both its validity and
pedigree. It takes more than one set of experimental
results to convince the majority anyway, so any one
offering cannot, in itself, "prove" much to anyone.
If we are going to play around with new ideas, no one needs to
"nail" one "every time it surfaces". New ideas are like infants -
without constant care and feeding, they die. There is no need to
be so aggressive.
I think the clearest thinking offered to date on this subject has
been Peter Borst's, when he said:
"Let me get this straight, you heard about this idea in August, turned
all the backwards combs around and a month later you say that "combs
in backwards" is the source of most of the problems beekeepers have
been having over the years?"
So, skepticism, yes. Humor, certainly. But hostile criticism is not required.
Also, Keith Malone informs me via e-mail that I screwed up every single one of
the "diagrams" in my prior posting. He's right. Regardless, the simplest claim
to test remains the claim:
"Bees build "Housels" if not forced by foundation to do
otherwise."
If this claim is true, it should be easy to find lots of "perfect Housels".
It seems clear that "perfect Housels" are not going to occur very often
by pure chance, given the number of possible "wrong" combinations.
jim
|