Gavin Ramsay wrote:

> 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.

The problem is, with some "pure" science today, no study will be 
sufficient. If you have doubts about that, there are many different 
studies out there that "prove" the exact opposite of other studies. 
Control of variables, design of the study, selective interpretation of 
data, politics, and creative programming all can keep the grant money 
flowing.

With applied science, which is what Jerry is doing, one of the benefits 
is that it will occasionally help further substantiate a theory or 
hypothesis. In this case, I do not think it helps either side that much, 
since it is incomplete. Jerry has said as much.

I do not have any dog in this fight, since I have believed all along 
that both odor and dance have a part in successful foraging.

One question for Jerry. Did you monitor for the dance in the hive? That 
really does not tell us much, since there was no nectar source, but 
would help a little if the trials were turned into an experiment.

One question for the group. Is dance language used for a nectar source 
close (the operative word here) to the hive? I see no good reason for it 
if the hive is close by or downwind of a plentiful source of nectar. But 
maybe it is used.

Some observations on his trials.

Jerry shifted from adhesives to a "bare" bee so the bee would not be 
overwhelmed by the adhesives odor (along with other things). What he is 
trying to find is not a clover field, but one clover blossom in a barren 
field. It seems that if the adhesive limits the bee's ability to detect 
other odors, then dance is validated by the Riley study. That is a big 
"if", but removing the variable of odor either at the bee, at the source 
or, in this case, both goes a long way to substantiate dance language.

Jim's comment of adding a real nectar source, like a distant flower 
patch, would also help one side or the other. It would not help the 
trials, which is why it was omitted and the close by source, limited. In 
essence, the bees were shown the close by source had "dried up" so 
looked elsewhere for the blooming land mines.

You cannot take odor out of foraging. My opinion (guess) is Jerry has 
shown not all stages of foraging but the first stage, as Jim noted. Bees 
will search out odors. What they do with the information is where the 
controversy is. To me, if there is a reward, then that information needs 
to get to the other bees. We know they exchange nectar, so that imparts 
the information on what it is to look for. If that is all, then all 
nectar sources must be downwind of the hive. However, if additional 
information can be imparted, then nectar sources can be anywhere.

Jerry's trails, however, allow bees to find the chemical scents anywhere 
around but near to the colony. It would be interesting to see if the 
distribution of bees finding the "land mines" is greater down wind than 
up wind and how that varies over time. What that might show is the 
foraging nature of bees. If the initial distribution is mostly downwind 
then becomes more uniform around the hive, it would imply that foraging 
is random in nature if no food source is initially detected down wind. 
You could also monitor for dance language. If none, then there is no 
nectar source. If there is then why, if there is no nectar source?

There are several more things I could add, but this post is long enough 
as is. I appreciate Jerry's work (since it is the kind of thing I liked 
to do - get out of the lab and into the field and blow things up). His 
trials are directed in a very different direction than "odor or dance". 
He is at the first stage of foraging which is discovery, and from his 
data, a lot can be learned on how bees find a nectar source. What the 
bee does with that information may be a part of his trials, but does not 
appear so from what I have read to date. It is the human observer that 
uses the information.

BTW, Jerry, I thought the reason you shifted to bees to find land mines 
is you ran out of graduate students.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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