Jerry, Adrian, Jim, Ruth, Dave, Bill, a couple of Mikes, and everyone else
..... (but mostly Jerry and Adrian)

Underlying all of this discussion there is still one point that shines
through ... the Riley et al paper was an elegant piece of
hypothesis-testing, even though the hypotheses weren't described in those
terms. The two implied and mutually exclusive hypotheses:

1.  That naive foragers 'learn' from observing the waggle dance in which
(approximate) direction to fly for the forage that excited the dancer.

2.  That naive foragers leave the hive aiming for the forage using other
cues, such as odour, as *the main cue for the approximate location of the
site*.

The study was unbiased, in that the data collected could have invalidated
either hypothesis.  As it happened no. 2 bit the dust.  Note that nowhere
did anyone say that this means bees do not use odour, just that they *do*
use the dance information, and did not use odour for long-distance
navigation in that experiment.

What I haven't seen in any of the discussion yet is a real, straight
explanation of why this conclusion is wrong or might be wrong.  Jerry is
holding back because transponders can affect foragers.  Well, OK, but have
you the experience Jerry of how such interference might be manifest.  Is it
conceivable that this interference could mislead Riley and co, and the rest
of us who now believe his results?  Could it cause the bees to all fly East?

Adrian has reservations that prevent him from accepting the paper too.
Having read several of the papers he quoted, it seems to me that Adrian's
reluctance comes from a long history of hurt, of scientific hostility,
editorial intransigence, and intellectual theft.  But what if you open your
mind to the possibility that Riley and colleagues are actually right?  Your
objections seem unconvincing to me - that the researchers had preconceived
ideas and were biased, that the transponders and the handling interfered to
impose the flight pattern observed, and that not all controls were included.
There is some validity in that last point.  Observing non-recruited foragers
would have been worthwhile, but I could understand that in the 2-frame
colonies it would have been hard to be sure that a bee had *not* observed a
dance.  Lacking this control doesn't negate the study, unless there are real
grounds for believing that something apart from watching the dance could
cause the bees to fly East.

Adrian also said that results should be repeated by a different group before
they can be accepted.  I'm not convinced by that - in the science with which
I'm involved, one good quality clear-cut study is sufficient.

And Ruth - you came so close in one of your posts:
> They meticulously reported that one of the 23 bees fitted
> with transponders and released at the hive, never left the
> vicinity of the hive, and 3 other bees in that group
> started flying east, like all the rest, but did not provide
> enough radar-"sightings" for constructing a good track
> (probably because they flew too low. So, trying to figure
> out how the authors obtained the results they published, is
> still a problem.

The problem might be that they are right, no?  So back to that
hypothesis-testing: where was the faulty reasoning or experimental design?

best wishes to all

Gavin
(Bee dance language advocate for a whole 12 days now!)

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---