>I have no way to substantiate, but I've always figured that when a colony
>goes laying worker due to queenlessness, that that was a last-ditch attempt
>to pass the colony's genes on.

I have always thought and I have never seen evidence to the contrary that
the development of ovaries in workers was little more than an aberration
with no useful purpose. You have to put it in the context of all bees, ants,
and insects in general. The abilities of females in these various species
varies considerably with some females being completely capable of
reproduction by themselves, to completely sterile workers in other species. 

I would liken ovaries in a worker honey bee to mammary glands in male
mammals. They will develop somewhat under certain circumstances but this is
presumably due to the presence of the genes for these organs not being
completely suppressed and not related to some latent functionality at all.
Although they occasionally do become activated, like worker bee ovaries, you
would be hard pressed to show that this is purposeful rather than merely odd. 

* * *

> Both sexes of all mammals have mammary glands. While the glands are
generally less well developed and nonfunctional in males, the degree of
underdevelopment varies among species. At one extreme, in mice and rats, the
mammary tissue never forms ducts or a nipple and remains invisible from the
outside. At the opposite extreme, in dogs and primates (including humans),
the gland does form ducts and a nipple in both males and females and
scarcely differs between the sexes before puberty.

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/feb/fathersmilk468

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