> Allen D. Writes:
>> Dr. Harbo pointed out that SMR mites actually defecate in a different
>> area of the cell than do non-SMR bees.

I did NOT write that.

> (SMR=HYG)=False

I did write that, and ((SMR=HYG)=False)=TRUE

For SMR=HYG to be true, the terms on each side must be *identical*.  These
are not. (Identical means "*exactly* the same").

AFAIK, there are subtle and meaningful differences that may have been
neglected in the dumbed-down releases intended for the public, but which are
of some considerable interest to some of us.  Although each  the above terms
is now known to represent a set of hygienic behaviours, they are not -- last
I heard Harbo discuss it -- an identical set.  Harbo's bees go beyond what
has been considered HYG in the past. Whether the term 'SMR' is still
considered appropriate and being used is immaterial to this discussion. I've
searched for a definitive definition of "HYG", but not found anything better
than the following written by "Marla Spivak, Rebecca Masterman , Rocco Ross,
Karen A. Mesce, from http://tinyurl.com/8wu2p: "Honey bees, Apis mellifera,
which perform hygienic behavior, quickly detect, uncap and remove diseased
brood from the nest. This behavior, performed by bees 15-20 days old and
prior to foraging..."  Note the word, "diseased", not, "parasitized" or
"distressed".  These people choose their words with care.

> Harbo's on the boat, and he seems to be leaving without you guys. ;>)

Harbo's not on any boat, and he is not leaving.  Give me a break. For me,
persistent trolls have a special place -- my killfile.  On the other hand, I
have respect for writers -- no matter whether we agree or not -- who bother
to be sure who wrote what, who address concepts rather than haranguing
individuals over semantics, who don't sprinkle their text with inappropriate
emoticons, and can cite articles that they have actually read and understood
which are related to their points more than peripherally -- and which
actually support their point rather than drawing it into question.

> I have two 'expert opinions' from Harbo and Huang:  "But with further
> investigation, Harbo and Harris have found that their SMR bees aren't
> meddling with mite reproduction after all. Instead, the bees are simply
> exceptional housekeepers."

Well, if uncapping and pulling out reproducing mites caught in the act
doesn't constitute "meddling with mite reproduction", then what does?

Let's look at it, however.  The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Dictionary
says: "reproduction - Pronunciation: "rE-pr&-'d&k-sh&n - Function: noun -
the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which
plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists
of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an
asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new
individual".

So, technically, using strictly that definition, if immatures are produced,
then reproduction has taken place, however, if the offspring are not able to
mature, then what?  Effectively, the reproduction has been unsuccessful.
Moreover, whether some of the reproduction is suppressed by early uncapping
will depend on at what stage the cell is uncapped.  If uncapping takes place
early enough, then some reproduction is stopped.  When we observed this in
Dee's bees, there was never more than one visible mite in the cell, but
maybe there were some immatures.  Dunno..

If uncapping takes place later on, and does not prevent any reproduction
(strictly defined), then the uncapping could be compared to abortion, but,
golly, that is really splitting hairs.  At what point is reproduction
complete?  At egg laying, at hatching, or at maturity?  Probably at egg
laying?  No matter?  Although the mechanism may affect the name of the
effect, it does not change the fact that raising more mature adults is
suppressed, and, further, that reproduction is curtailed at the time of
early uncapping.

All that is really beside the point.  There is not, and has not been, any
dispute here that the original SMR trait that was being sought, and for
which Harbo's bees were named, has not been proven to exist to any
significant extent.  The point being made is that bees selected by Harbo,
and still called SMR bees AFAIK, are on the market, and they have unique
properties beyond the previous HYG bees.  Bob has some, and AFAIK, I can
still order you some -- if you have the cash.  That is all I have been
claiming AFAIK, other than pointing out that the mechanism(s) used by
Harbo's bees appear different from previously demonstrated HYG.  I'm sure
we'll be hearing more on this.

For that matter, Bob and I probably were aware of the fact that there was an
unexpected result with SMR long before many were, and were also aware that
there would be implications for the direction of future work.  I could say
more, but name dropping and revealing the content of personal discussions
and communications not intended for publication are simply not my style.
Maybe I'll have more later on this.

> Any mother will tell you that 'they will do what ever is necessary to give
> the youngsters the best chance at survival', and this includes mother
> varroa pooping outside the feeding area up along the sidewalls near rim of
> the cell so as not to contaminate the food for the kids.

The fecal spot is significant for other well-known reasons, and besides,
insects are not very analogous to humans. Think honeydew.

I'm hoping somebody is finding this whole hair-splitting episode useful.
I'm not.  I'll reply to any well-written, well thought out, non argumentive
and non-magical posts, but from here on out, I'm going to start deleting,
and, if that does not work, updating my killfile.

allen

If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going.
            -- Professor Irwin Corey

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---