>The honey bee is highly adaptable so the whole notion of locally adapted is a mirage.

I can't fathom why you would make such a statement, Pete, in light of the
fact that Apis mellifera clearly adapted into a large number of
morphologically and behaviorally different races, each adapted to its local
environment, long prior to mankind entering into breeding.

Looking over the statement, I realize it was hastily written and is very unclear. I have used both definitions of adapt in the same sentence. Perhaps we need a different word. In the first sense, adaptable means to be able to adapt in real time to changing conditions. In the second sense, it addresses evolutionary adaptation which is the result of natural selection.

I was referring again to the concept that evolutionary adaptation can be realized in the short term, such as is claimed by bee enthusiasts around the world. No one would deny that there are geographic distinctions between the so-called races of honey bees found in many parts of the world.

However, simply being distinct does not necessarily equate with adaptation to the local environment. Natural selection is only one factor of many that creates geographically distinct populations. There are other important factors including sexual selection, mutation, and genetic drift. These latter can be completely neutral in terms of fitness and yet cause populations to diverge in significant ways.

The adaptationists tend to regard all variations as examples of evolutionary fitness, whereas something like sexual attraction may have no particular fitness benefit. For example, a mate may be very attractive and yet be short lived, have low fertility, may lack important characteristics such as parental care, and other skills. 

Genetic drift, too, can produce entire populations that are geographically distinct and yet have no particular difference in fitness compared to a population that appears entirely different in another region. Floral shapes, sizes, etc. come to mind. 

Regarding the honey bee, there are a variety of behaviors that can affect fitness, and it is not clear that one or another of these is "better" in terms of ensuring long term survival. For example, which is better: the trait of the European bee to hoard honey and wait for better conditions, or the trait of the tropical bee to abscond and seek better conditions? 

In terms of sheer numbers, it would appear that the latter is better since there are hundreds of millions of colonies of African bees and only tens of millions of European ones. Further, the ability to migrate also means that a species is no longer geographically tethered. 

Which brings us to the original point: which would be a better strategy for long term survival: to become tightly adapted to a particular climate or region -- or to remain highly flexible, adaptable in the first sense? Obviously one of the reasons the human is so successful is that we can live almost anywhere, as a species. 

On the other hand, there are species that are completely incapable of living outside of a very specific environment, completely dependent on things being just so. And when conditions change radically, many of these species perish and become extinct. The ability to change is an evolutionary advantage. To become very tightly adapted to specific conditions leads to dependence on the continuation of those particular conditions. 

Finally, the point is that because a species is distinct does not mean that it is necessarily more tightly tuned to that environment; it may be, but variation causes many other changes unrelated to fitness. If this were not so, we would not have the hundreds of millions of different species. 

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