> If there exists an unbroken novel mitotype (i.e. 'M' or 'O') found in feral specimens that does not show up in the neighboring commercial samples, how does this not suggest a different gene signature?

Time and again we have said that some sort of identifiable genetic marker or distinct phenotype can be used to differentiate between subspecies, but this does not therefore indicate a significant or adaptive difference. To make it simple: some folks have blue eyes, some brown. Does anyone think that is an adaptation? And if even it were at one time a million years ago, it serves no purpose now other than to get people to point out what beautiful blue eyes you have (or don't). 

Back to bees, I think there is a preponderance of evidence that feral bees freely interbreed with domestic bees in most locales. Why wouldn't they? In all case where subspecies have been named there have been debates on criteria and validity. Need I say that the idea of human racial distinctions (other than we look different) has been reduced to an scientific fallacy? Do we not suppose the same for "races" of honeybees—and what will you call sub-sub-species? The term ecotype is used but there you have to have an identifiable type wedded to an ecosystem. 

I know enough about taxonomy to know that some genera have hundreds or thousands of species, which cannot be distinguished without either extensive training and microscopes, or genetic sequencing. I am reminded of the old practice of looking at tea leaves. No matter how vigorously one claims there is something to be read in the leaves, I don't believe it. Show me or forget about it.

PLB

             ***********************************************
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