Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:45:17 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Chris Slade wrote:
> All the
> 'hybrids' under discussion are of different strains or 'breeds' of the species Apis
> mellifera and are thus, again using your definitions, are 'mongrels'.
>
>
Actually, that is exactly what they are, even the specific "pure" races
of bees. If you trace them back they are a mix of earlier bees and on
and on.
We do not call them mongrels since they are now stable and "pure".
Mongrel would not be a term used by someone in a scientific study but
mixed race would. Even then it is a lazy term since DNA would give an
inkling of the racial origins. Mongrel is actually a disparaging term
for what others would call a cross or hybrid. It infers bad or inferior
characteristics, like hot bees, which you can also get with a hybrid.
Look at the Buckfast hybrid. It is a mix of many different bees, a
classic definition of mongrel. But we know its parentage, so we can be
nice and call it a hybrid.
The interesting thing here is that the term 'mongrelizing" is also used
disparagingly for the local mixing of bee stock, while all the threads
on the offspring of breeding a bee for local conditions is looked at
favorably. Both are actually the same. It all depends on the prejudices
of the observer and their choice of language. A good bee is a product of
the beekeeper's fine breeding methods and a hot bee is a product of
mongrelization.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
|
|