> what single experiment would it take to prove absolutely
> that the dance language hypothesis is untenable, or at
> least open to serious question?
While even the subject of the thread is misleading, (and
misspelled to boot!) in that a "controversy" requires someone
to actually take the objections to the general consensus
seriously, sure, I'll play along, regardless...
The good news is that William Towne of Kutztown University,
Kutztown, PA has recently done the experiment requested,
published his results in reputable journals, and has been
repeating/continuing the experiment to gather more data for
several years.
1) Find two sites with "similar" terrain, but with the
"major feature" (a treeline, for example) in
"mirror image" in terms of compass heading. For example,
"Site A" with a treeline running on the Southern
side of the field, and "Site B" with a treeline on the
Northern side of the field.
2) Establish some observation hives at Site A, and keep them
there long enough so that the foraging force currently
foraging had hatched at that site, and made their initial
orientation flights at that site. All hive entrances should
face the treeline.
3) Set up a feeder (scented or unscented, I don't care which)
to the East of the test colonies, also along the treeline.
4) Keep the feeder full, so that it becomes a reliable source
of "nectar" for the hive(s). Monitor and record the dances
to verify that the bees are reporting the direction and
distance vectors for the feeder. (Or, or the odor-search
proponents, "Verify that the dance vectors are in line with
what has been claimed to be a set of distance and direction
vectors.")
5) Mark all the foragers at this point, color dots will do,
as all one wants to do is identify the adults who oriented
at Site A, to tell them from bees that will orient at
Site B.
6) Now, relocate the hives in dark of night to Site B, and
once again, set up the feeder to the EAST of the hives,
thus "reversing" the relative placement of the feeder in
relation to the treeline. The hive entrances should once
again face the treeline, so they are now facing the
opposite compass direction, but still facing the major
terrain feature (the treeline). Still confused? Draw a diagram.
7) Now start watching the dances of the marked foragers, and pay
attention to the amount cloud cover. When the sun is out,
nothing seems amiss, and the dance vectors reported are "accurate".
8) But when cloud cover makes UV sky-pattern based navigation
impossible, the bees are forced to rely on terrain to navigate,
and you will notice that the dances of the marked foragers will
be referencing a feeder that does not exist, one that is South
of the hive(s), the exact opposite direction of the feeder.
9) As the cloud cover breaks, and blue sky reappears, note that
the dance direction vectors given by the marked foragers will
adjust from "180 degrees wrong" back to "on target".
What happened here?
The point made by William Towne is that bees don't really re-learn
their surroundings if they are moved after their initial orientation
flights. This does not matter if they can rely on the usual UV-pattern
based navigation, but becomes clear when they can't use UV, and are
forced to rely on terrain features. They will get things backwards
when presented with similar terrain that is a "mirror image" of the
site where they oriented. You can "fool the bees" and "make them
lie" to their hivemates.
But my point (one that Dr. Towne may not wish to push due to the
tedious nature of being dragged into the dance vs odor chowder and
marching society) is that the experiment would fail to show any
difference in results if "odor" had any impact on the situation.
If dance direction vector information were meaningless or irrelevant,
dance direction vectors would not change from "completely wrong" to
"accurate" as a result of the availability of UV navigation data to
the foragers, nor would other foragers be "fooled" by such dances.
It is very compelling when one can "fool the bees" or "make them
lie", as the bees themselves are giving the incorrect information
to other bees, who then act upon the "lies", and waste their effort,
evidence of what the bees themselves think, and this makes one's
results less open to arguments that one has misinterpreted data.
But read the actual papers. Don't make me the point man for an
argument that may never end. The papers say what they say, and
have lots of pretty diagrams and charts:
http://faculty.kutztown.edu/towne/Towne%20&%20Kirchner%201998.PDF
http://faculty.kutztown.edu/towne/Towne%20&%20Kirchner%201998.PDF
Please note that my participation in the game does not imply
that I feel that there is any "controversy" in this area that
requires any additional evidence to resolve. The situation,
in my view, is similar to the "controversies" about the
impact of human activities on global warming, and the impact
of smoking on the smoker's health. Any "controversy" is
only kept "alive" through use of life-support systems.
(One might also observe that the need for life-support
implies that the controversy itself is "brain-dead",
but I'm just not that mean.)
Also note that I don't see much impact from the problem exposed
by Dr. Towne on practical beekeeping, in that an overcast day
may screw up navigation, dances, and foraging, but an overcast
day also reduces the nectar available, meaning that not much
that might turn into a harvestable crop is "at risk" as a result
of moving one's hives, and then having some cloudy days.
> If we don't get at least one answer to this, I'm going to have to
> conclude either
> 1.) that nobody here believes strongly in the dance language
> hypothesis,
The line above forced those of us using the Troll plug-in to set
the threshold on our troll detection systems to much higher levels
than we had been able to use in prior months.
> or 2.) that nobody who does can imagine anything that would
> change his/her mind about it.
The line above still evinces a basic misunderstanding of the
difference between "Science", and "Belief".
In Science, there is ALWAYS the chance that some new finding
can refute prior understandings that resulted in a general
consensus. In Belief, new findings are either ignored, or
twisted beyond recognition until they appear to support
(or at least not undermine) the belief.
Personally, I see a situation where specific minor points are
seized upon as a basis for critique of specific experiments.
While these critiques may be perfectly valid as far as they
go, they do NOT imply that even a major defect in one or more
experiments are a valid basis for supporting "odor", as the
critiques never offer any tangible support for "odor", but
merely attempt to undermine "dance", and then offer "odor"
as if it were the only possible alternative explanation.
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
