In message <[log in to unmask]>, Allen Dick
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Needless to say, this sounds bizarre to anyone who has spent much time in
>university or even high school biology classes.  The whole concept runs
>directly
>counter to the basic beliefs and understandings of those who have studied
>biology.
Am I missing something here? If bees are larger because of feeding and
cell size, then surely they would get smaller if a smaller foundation
was given? There must be some feedback in the system so as you enlarge
the size so bees (presuming this to be true of course) would be larger
as the grub was larger but not fill the cell as much. So indefinitely
increasing the cell size would not indefinitely increase the larval
size: apart from the discontinuity to drone eggs, there would be a
curvilinear relationship. The effect of this would be increased space in
the cell as a proportion of the total space as well as absolutely.
Conversely, as you "trained" the bees to work in a smaller cell, the
proportional and also absolute value of the space would decrease - quite
rapidly actually. Equally, letting bees make cells themselves, they
would make them slightly tighter around their own size. Genes plus cell
size (and feeding) would appear to be involved in this model, not just
genes. If there is some other explanation of the reduction in cell size
observed by the Lusby's please let's have it. And no, you will recognise
I have not done Biology, but Physics (and Education)! Please explain why
it should be bizarre.
--
James Kilty BSc(special), PhD, basic certificate in beekeeping, and proud of
them all! The struggle to learn is always worth it. And certificates don't
measure it well.