----- Original Message -----
From: Isis Glass <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 3:00 pm
Subject: [BEE-L] Informed Comments

> our friend writes:
> There have been a number of reports on this list that suggests that
> many feral bees are somewhat genetically dissimilar to most "owned"
> bees. I
> do not have the references at my fingertips, nor do I have any
> intentionof finding them - interested parties are welcome to use
> the search
> feature.  Why?  Because it is irrelevant.
>
> Comment:
>
> Well, I did a search for "somewhat genetically dissimilar" but
> funny how
> nothing turned up.

I believe you are kidding.  I would be surprised if that did turn up
anything with that as your search phrase.  Folks familiar with a real
search engine would not have used such a phrase.  Look for feral or
ferals and cross reference to Joe Waggle or naturebee as I believe it
was he who last mentioned this work.  I may be wrong about the Waggle
cross reference, but it you put your mind to it, you will find the info.

> You refer to unnamed reports on the one hand and on the other say:
> wellscience doesn't matter anway.  Don't bother me with facts; I
> already believe
> what I want.

My point wanders alone, missed in its entirety.

I said that when discussing the definition of domesticated and feral as
we were, that the genetic similarity or lack thereof of these
populations was irrelevant.  Feral dogs are not markedly genetically
dissimilar to owned dogs.

I suspect you are the first person to ever suggest that I would say that
science doesn't matter.  Thanks, I got a chuckle out of that.

> It's a small wonder there are so few serious bee researchers on
> this list.

Interesting you should say that . . . .

Keith

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