BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Date:
Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:01:49 -0800
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
>
> > The reproductive capability of individual worker bees is normally
> suppressed by pheromone driven inhibition of oogenesis and nest surveillance
> schemes enforced by the worker population.


Just so everyone knows, Pete and I have a long off list correspondence in
sharing papers on this subject.  I find the comparisons of different social
insect colony reproductive strategies fascinating--there are many ways to
skin a cat.

Honey bees (discounting A.m. capensis) have one system, which works well for
them.  When we see "aberrations," such as laying workers, it may not be
clear whether such aberrations are atavistic "throwbacks," or the "selfish
gene" exerting itself, or a clever backup mechanism that has evolutionarily
proven to be of benefit.

I've seen reams of papers on the subject, and looked at complex mathematical
models.  The field is hardly settled, and each new discovery or hypothesis
adds to the discussion.

My interest is in practical applications, to wit, how we approach bee
breeding.

Randy Oliver

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2