> My goal was to get you to explain what makes you think that continuing to treat is counterproductive,  not based on Darwinism principles,  which were and are based much on local adaptations,  but what we have here and now based on a global situation that precludes isolation and the evolution that comes from that.

Look at it this way: suppose you wish to breed bees resistant to cold. The logical thing is to breed them in a cold place. If you try to do it with bees in Florida, you will not have the pressure of cold for which you are selecting. So, if you want to breed for mite resistance, and you constantly kill mites with chemicals, you don't have the selective pressure. The bees can survive without ever developing mite resistance. 

Now, if the question is: are there mite resistant bees? Of course there are. Apis cerana has a stable relationship with varroa developed over thousands or millions of years. Also, the reference to Mike Allsopp's work shows bees in Africa that do not succumb to varroa, and African bees in the Americas have this ability as well. Mite resistant bees are available to purchase. These bees are not "mite-proof" due to many reasons -- reasons which do not negate their value. 

I think it's clear that everyone wants bees that resist varroa, that such bees exist, but that they cannot be depended upon in all circumstances. One can certainly combine resistance with chemical control; it's just that you cannot study resistance if you remove the mites. You can use a surrogate approach, however, sampling for hygienic behavior. But actually studying factors like mite reproduction, or varroa sensitive hygiene, will require mites -- at least in the selection process.

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