Content-Type: |
text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:42:41 +0000 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Dee
Lusby <[log in to unmask]> writes
>True for orderly replacement of the mother. But having a
>queen try to flyout crippled, who cannot forfill her
>destiny if left allowed is somehow wrong. Do we cripple
>other animals so they cannot continue their life cycle?
OK, but this is an opinion, side-stepping the actual point, and not
related to the original assertion in which use of the term supercedure
was synonymous with swarming.
And the answer to your question is a definite YES, humans have done that
to animals, and themselves, for many centuries.
A clipped queen cannot continue her lifecycle? Apart from restraining a
prized asset from flying heaven knows where, often to a place it will be
a nuisance for those of us not fortunate/unfortunate enough to live in a
virtually endless wilderness, pray tell how?
--
Murray McGregor
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|