Pete, I'm afraid that we are going to need to disagree on several points.
We've both read the latest scientific literature on natural selection and
genetics extensively, as well as having been beekeepers for many years, but
we've come to very different interpretations of those inputs.

> Natural selection in the feral (and to some extent in the managed) honey
> bee populations hasn't stopped.
> >But after only 28 years, how can this be said with a straight face?
>

Pete, I watched the California bee population evolve resistance to
chalkbrood.  Since there were no treatments, this was clearly a case of
"treatment free."

I also watched the U.S. bee population quickly evolve resistance to
tracheal mite, in a matter of less than a decade, not thousands of years
(I'm not *that * old).  Since most were not treating for T mite, that was
also a care of "treatment free" adaptation.

I'm not a proponent of "treatment free" beekeeping unless you are a serious
breeder, but I feel that you have no case to call the rapid evolutionary
adaptation of bees to novel parasites a "myth."

>
> > Bees today are more resistant to varroa  than when varroa first arrived
> (and far > more resistant to tracheal mite).
>
> And there are specific people to thank for their efforts in this work.
> There was not any sort of "natural selection" at work in either
> achievement.
>

Pete, that is utter nonsense!  Steve Taber bred the first T mite resistant
stock, and I purchased some of the first queens.  But most other breeders
and beekeepers didn't.  Yet within a few years, most susceptible stocks
died off (about 70% of the hives in Calif), leaving only "survivors."
 That's how evolution works quickly.  And through "natural selection."

As far as varroa resistance, some breeders have incorporated a bit of VSH
or hygienic stock, which certainly may contribute to a shift in the
domestic stocks.  But I've watched bee populations in general naturally
evolve a degree of resistance to varroa and viruses greater than the naive
stock prior to varroa.

>
> >If only there was a requirement that all queens be marked by the
> producers.
> Then one could see how many "ferals" are anything but.
>

Mitotyping doesn't lie.  It tracks mother lines as far back as you want to
go.  No need to mark queens to determine their heritage.  Mitotyping has
clearly demonstrated that the majority of feral matrilines DID NOT descend
from our current domestic stocks.

As you well know, I greatly respect your opinions.  But in this case, I
feel that you've got it wrong.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html