This message was originally submitted  by [log in to unmask] to the
BEE-L
list  at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU.  You can  approve it  using the  "OK"
mechanism,
ignore it, or repost an edited copy. The message will expire automatically
and
you do not need to do anything if you just want to discard it. Please refer
to
the list owner's guide if you are  not familiar with the "OK" mechanism;
these
instructions  are  being  kept  purposefully short  for  your  convenience
in
processing large numbers of messages.

----------------- Original message (ID=F875A415) (116
lines) ------------------
Received: from smtp.albany.edu (mail1.its.albany.edu [169.226.1.105])
by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jA6FfFsF022134
for <[log in to unmask]>; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:41:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp-04.primus.ca (mail.tor.primus.ca [216.254.136.21])
by smtp.albany.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jA6FfDgr000112
for <[log in to unmask]>; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:41:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [66.244.235.13] (helo=Nemo)
by smtp-04.primus.ca with esmtpa (Exim 4.50)
id 1EYmds-0005XF-Cv
for [log in to unmask]; Sun, 06 Nov 2005 10:41:13 -0500
Message-ID: <006b01c5e2e8$83ec5200$b77ba8c0@Nemo>
From: "allen dick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology"
<[log in to unmask]>
References:  <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re:      Re: [BEE-L] Succeeding with small cell
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:41:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 169.226.1.44

Dee said:
> Interesting following the conversations of late and it makes me wonder
> about todays DNA readings of what is proported to be.

Yes, and in that regard, I'm wondering if you ever did get a recent and an
historical DNA analysis done on your bees, and if you will share the
results.  That should settle the suspicions of some that the reason your
bees are doing so extremely well on 4.9 is that they became Africanized over
the same timespan that you were downsizing, and that 4.9 is the preferred
size for AHB worldwide.

> ...how does this relate to the artificial enlargement of our bees for the
> past 100 years or so, since breeding got going for "bigger is better" from
> the time of Prof Baudoux in Belgium and spread throughout our world? Seems
> to me like the term Lamarckianism would be excellent for describing this
> movement towards bigger also.

Exactly.  You've put your finger on a main reason so many of us doubt that
entire story, as Dennis so well pointed out just now.  He said it so
eloquently that I will repeat it and await a direct answer to his points:

Dennis said:
> "Before foundation, when the world was composed of all small cell bees,
> how did a few beekeepers and a little bit of large cell foundation make
> such a large impact on the worlds bee populations. How did those large
> cell size bees, which are inferior in mating, disease resistance,
> production, survival, mite tolerance, etc., almost completely displace the
> small cell ones? How could natural equilibrium be pushed so far out of
> bounds that it requires a beekeepers intervention with regression to
> re-establish it?".

Dee said (cont'd)
> Was that time period sufficient to make changes in our bees today for the
> fit to go on and the unfit to fail?

Is this question answerable?  I know I can't begin to address it, because I
can't accept its basic premise.  Obviously we are not just considering
survival of the fittest in one small, stable natural ecology, but rather a
large, dynamic and perhaps chaotic system distributed over a vast area with
many changing environments and many opposing and changing forces pulling
every which way, and with ongoing natural and man-caused migrations and
selections of bees and stock throughout.

Speaking just of the Americas, there are many factors at play throughout,
including scientific selective breeding like NWC and SMR; just to name two
of many; importation, just to name the Russian and Australian imports, which
were legal and reported widely, plus unofficial small-scale activity; feral
activity; AHB migration throughout the Western hemisphere, much of which is
under-reported and not fully understood; and other factors, both known and
unknown, that are entering the mix.

> We now reverse the situation and go back down in size, which is what
> regression is..... what will show in say 10 or even 100 years as to what
> is positive and what is recessive traits genetically? How will DNA testing
> compare to what is shown today?

These seem to be rhetorical questions, since no one can answer them, and
probably -- IMO -- no one can begin to grasp all the factors in play -- or
predict the future.  Trying to answer such questions just quickly makes
monkeys out of those who do so.

> And again, will the time period be sufficient to make changes in our bees
> for the fit to go on and the unfit to fail?

Again, we are talking about so many populations -- some interlinked -- under
so many differing conditions of environment and management that
generalization is impossible.

> Just what is fit and what is unfit? The politics of the day?

The way many want use the terms, that is likely a most astute observation.

> Where would we compare these two bases to? Samples of bees from millions
> of years old? Thousands? Hundreds? What would you expect to see?

A very interesting question.  I'd expect to see diversity -- and as they
find in human anthropology -- just enough to give rise to more questions
than answers, and (as many here would enjoy), unlimited food for
speculation and pet theories.

;>)

allen

It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety.
            -- Isaac Asimov

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