Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 6 Apr 2006 19:35:12 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dave writes:
is not a self perpetuating
Reply:
Why is it not? Seems to be a perfectly logical backup
reproduction system to me. Just because beekeepers have
been taught now for a little over 100 years to destroy and
get rid of laying worker hives, does not mean that it is
not self perpetuating. In fact, Dave might be interesting
to see whether or not it is a carry over trait or one still
evolving on the evolutionary chain. Which do you think it
is?
Dave continues:
Because once the 'extra' genes get into the population the
pressure is removed. From that point on the level of
anarchy will drift back down to natural 'noise' levels.
Reply:
Would think this would only apply to climatic circumstances
curently at hand as to whether or not the positive or a
more recessive side is seen, coming and going as needed,
thinking straight bees and non-man interference.
But with what you write here too I would like to say, I
feel that beekeepers interrupt this trait more than many
think by willful distruction of laying workers when found,
so the pressure is indeed removed artificially, rather then
letting Nature take her course, thereby creating an
artificial reduction of the trait to what man considers
back down to 'natural' noise levels.
Dave continues:
Another factor... We have been talking of anarchy, which
brings in a few extra genes via drones, real seed change
requires full blown thelytoky which is perhaps as much as a
thousand times rarer than anarchy.
Reply:
Yep, agree here, but after 100 years of destroying such
traits how would you know what are natural levels vs
unnatural ones? And for what....to protect pedigree bees
for profit? Now falling apart? Like Rome falling again as
economics and bees are linked and always have been.
Dave writes:
except in the case of Capensis, where it is considered
normal.
Reply:
Somehow I disagree here. But then we are entitled to
opinions aren't we.
Dave continues:
the 'pedigree' of the colonies concerned was not
ascertained (or was not ascertainable).
Reply:
Again disagree, but then I still have my copies of archives
of USDA experiments of years ago stating various races
trait found in. Also went into the drone side too if I
remember right.
Respectfull submitted,
Dee A. Lusby
Small Cell Commercial Beekeeper
Moyza, Arizona
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/organicbeekeepers/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|