Hi All

> Dave Cushman was there too and may wish to come in and amplify what I  
> recall. 

My observation and recall are not any better than Chris, I was rather 
taken aback by the statement, as I instantly saw that much work being 
pursued by several groups in UK, may be flawed or wasted. However the 
statement was made with strong conviction by a guy who I have respect 
for as a diligent and persistent worker.

So as far as I am concerned there is doubt to be cast on the work done 
originally by Friedrich Ruttner concerning mite damage. (Which will 
become a web page sometime in the future.)

Having said that, there are things that are not explained if the damage 
is completely post mortem, in particular the escalating nature of what 
we have called mite damaging behaviour within a colony and the fact that 
we can breed for a higher incidence of it.

So like many other things, the more we find out... The more we realise 
that we do not know.

More work needs to be done and past data (slides of damaged mites) need 
to be re-examined using sharper statistical tools to analyse the visual 
defects observed so that the pattern of defect can be attributed to 
particular actions carried out by the bees.


Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY
http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman or http://www.dave-cushman.net
Short FallBack M/c, Build 6.02/3.1 (stable)

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************