Dave Cushman wrote:
> >From the above we can infer that either, AHB and scutellata are not the same
> thing, or if we accept that scutellata is AHB then something else must have
> caused the shift in cellsize in the Americas.

> As we only see bees larger than 5.1 cellsize in the "developed world" where
> foundation has been used for a century or so, is it not possible that the
> whole population of bees, that the morphometric studies were conducted on,
> were larger because all managed bees on foundation exibit an enlargement?

> The largest bee that occurs in the "wild" appears to be the high altitude
> variant of "Montecola" with a cellsize of  5.0 - 5.1 mm. I do not think it
> unreasonable to suggest that a low altitude upper limit of 5.00 mm for the
> developed world, would have existed prior to 1850 as this would fit the
> relationship with Barry's present day scuts.

Dave,
Might the difference in cell size (and bee) be due to the climate each
inhabits? Survival would seem to dictate a smaller bee in hotter
climates and a larger one in cold or temperate climates, as seems to be
the case from your comments.

What we look on as a small increase, .1 or .2mm, would add the cube of
that increase to the mass of the bee and increase its potential to
survive cold climate overwintering better than a smaller bee. You hit a
happy medium between increasing the mass and retaining excellent flying
and foraging ability, so 5.0 or 5.1 may be the best fit for a cold
weather/high altitude bee and 4.9 and smaller for a bee in hotter
climates.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME