> Here we go again with what is Native and how looked at,
> depending upon who's heritage for discovery one is looking
> at.
Are we going to redefine words, and twist their meaning? I hope not,
> Also, I personally still do not believe that the
> original testing (FABIS) and DNA looked at and set up was
> done with base stock properly FWIW.
This is possible, since to do such a task 100% correctly is virtually
impossible. Some assumptions had to be made. However, the consensus is
that the job was done reasonably well. Moreover, as time passes, there are
new methods of checking back
To date, however, there seems to be no evidence for stinging-type (European)
honey bees in the Americas before the White Man, other than imaginative
readings -- and likely misinterpretations -- of obscure documents.
If you torture the data enough, you can get it to say anything, even that
bees have been universally and permanently 'upsized', or that our common
honey bees were here all along.
If you don't torture it, though, and believe it speaks clearly and freely
with its own voice, neither of these ideas has much credibility.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|