Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:42:09 GMT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>>Is there a concise definition of "regressed bees"?
Sorry, Allen. I guess I am guilty again of using terms that show up on Bee-L but are not in frequent use here or elsewhere. Mea culpa. :)
>>if such a definition involves forcing bees to build on small cell
foundation
This is my understanding of the term as it's been used here.
>>how can TBH bees be "regressed" or "regressed"?
As I understand it, Dennis experimented with 4.9 mm foundation prior to building his TBHs. The question was whether he placed bees from his 4.9 mm hives in TBHs. I believe not. Dennis - if you are reading this - please help me out! :)
>>Or is "regressed" a permanent state? Huh?
Evidently not in managed colonies since bees can be forced onto smaller or larger foundation. It's a little bit of an open question as what happens in nature. Dennis' observations indicate a cell size gradation in naturally drawn comb. There is no 'one size fits all.' It makes sense to me since I have seen it in feral nests.
We dispute/talk about the mean cell sizes, ranges of cell sizes etc. though. :)
>>When measuing comb, we must remember that comb that is old tends to shrink, especially if dried out or exposed to heat.
The comb I have was covered by bees as recently as 3 days ago and I've kept it my garage at about 50-60 F. To rule out this factor, I can pull out of the hive the feral comb with brood that's still covered with bees.
>>The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it. -- P. B. Medawar
I think this is too simplistic. ;o) Not every human mind and not every body... ;-)
Waldemar
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|