 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:15:00 -0800 |
| MIME-version: |
1.0 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| In-Reply-To: |
<0b2e01c57414$078a9de0$b77ba8c0@Nemo> |
| Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Allen,
> All this logic is based, however, on assumptions that are themselves,
> IMO,
> flawed, the least reliable assumption of the set being the assumption
> that
> emergence timing is correlated with the age of the larva at the start in
> more than a loose fashion.
You do not, however, have nearly the variation in capping time. One can
remove a queen and find cells capped after 4 days, or perhaps even 3
days. It does not leave a lot to doubt as to the age of the larvae.
This said, it remains true that scientific data is lacking in the
assumptions, but they do serve a practical purpose.
Tom Elliott
Chugiak, AK
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
|
|
