Re Bee dances
In this forum, Adrian Wenner has repeatedly stated that the bee
language hypothesis is not being treated objectively but is a "fairy
tale" accepted by the weak-minded, gullible, and subservient.
Before anyone even had a chance to view the NOVA broadcast, he began
to give us his side. He wrote:
1) In its half century of existence, the bee language hypothesis has
provided no practical benefit to beekeepers;
This statement has no bearing on the validity of the
hypothesis. Much of scientific research has no clear economic value.
Unfortunately, much research is discontinued for just this reason-
there is no monetary profit in it. Seeley and others continue their
research into the internal hive functions, with no economic goal in
mind.
2) Apparently no one has been able to repeat James Gould's experiments and
obtain his results (a requisite before one should accept such results);
Which experiments? Gould conducted hundreds of experiments,
as described in his book "The Honet Bee," Scientific American, 1988.
Did Wenner attempt to repeat the experiments, or simply conduct
experiments designed to reinforce his own hypothesis? It is already
known that many species of bees use odor to locate food sources. Von
Frisch mentions this and states that some "primitive" species
(Melipona) even add bursts of buzzing to indicate distance (but not
direction). More "advanced" species (Apis florea) dance, but only in
the sunlight and point to the direction of the food source relative
to the sun. All of these are supplementary to giving samples of
nectar and odor.
3) Language proponents no longer seem able to phrase a concise scientific
statement (one with predictive power) of their favored hypothesis, a
necessary condition for future quality research;
Does Wenner question that the information about direction and
distance is encoded in the dance? Or does he mean that the
information is imprecise? The apparent imprecision of the information
should not surprise us since bees are supposed to visit acres of
flowers, not saucers of sugar sirup, and their brains are exceedingly
small which means that what information they may be able to retain
could not be highly specific. Furthermore, most of the experiments
that have been done within 1 kilometer of the hive, well within the
range of floral odors, where a sophisticated communication system
would not even be needed.
4) Much evidence has accumulated that sharply conflicts with the original
1946 Karl von Frisch interpretation (Wenner, A.M. and P.H. Wells 1990, Kak,
S.C. 1991, Vadas, R.L. Jr. 1994;
No one doubts this; much evidence exists to contradict
Darwin's theory of evolution. These are theories that help us to
describe the empirical evidence. Just as we may never know the truth
of evolution, we may never know the truth of the bee dance. All the
same, more genetic underpinnings to the evolutionary theory are being
unearthed each day. Precisely because honeybee communication has so
little potential for economic exploitation, the incentive for truly
exhaustive study is lacking.
5) A 1937 von Frisch interpretation about odor search behavior has more
validity than the highly touted language notion (Wenner, A.M. with K. von
Frisch 1993).
Is this objectivity? Is he asking us to compare the work of
Kirschner to his work or is he simply stating that his ideas are
simply better than anyone else's? Since he never even mentions the
studies using the robot honeybees, one wonders if he is even aware of
this recent research. See:
The Sensory Basis of the Honeybee's Dance Language
by Wolfgang H. Kirchner and William F. Towne
Scientific American, June 1994
"Novel experiments, such as training bees to respond to sounds and
recruiting them using a robot, have ended several debates surrounding
the dance language."
http://www.sciam.com/0694issue/0694kirchner.html
Evidently this debate had been going on since the late 1960s.
In thirty years, very few people have been persuaded to abandon the
dance language hypothesis. It is described in all major works on the
honeybee. Wenner feels that there has been a concerted effort to
dismiss his findings for reasons entirely separate from their
validity. While having the majority of the world's bee experts
accepting the dance language hypothesis does not validate it, this
does fit in with the concept of peer review.
I have no doubt that at this point that many in the
scientific community will choose to not even enter this debate since
it has degenerated to the level of posturing and insults. In fact, I
had made up my mind to stay out of it, but as many vague
generalizations have been posted here in support of the dance
language hypothesis, I felt compelled to share what I learned from
reading.
See:
Tom Seeley's ongoing work
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/seeley/seeley.html
Peter Borst
Apiary Technician
Dyce Honeybee Lab
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
[log in to unmask]
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/
|
