> Five years ago Dr. Hoffman expressed concern that if bees with "capensis 
> like traits" were to enter the large commercial migratory operations doing 
> almond pollination the industry could be in trouble.

Actually, in taking myself back, I do seem to recall some part of her 
discussion that, out of context, could have been misinterpreted that way, 
but the words were in the *hypothetical* and also parenthetical context of 
what would happen if someone somehow imported the problematic mutation of 
capensis, not in the context of any existing North American bees.

The off-topic comments, possibly in response to a hypothetical question, 
were about capensis itself, and what it would do to beekeeping if or when it 
arrived in North America.  I don't recall the phrase "bees with "capensis 
like traits", but then, capensis, if they ever did arrive, would, by 
definition have bees with "capensis like traits".

However, remember, this was a *sidebar*, a distraction, in a discussion of 
what is actually being observed in the South Western US, and possibly was 
these speculations were misunderstood by some to be actual, rather than 
hypothetical.

This is a perfect example of why politicians, and smart civil servants try 
to avoid conjecture and hypothetical statements or potentially 
misrepresentative sound bites.

It seems that large percentage of the population either aren't listening 
well and perk up during a part where they missed the underlying premise, or 
can't tell the difference between, "let's pretend for minute", and "this is 
real".

I see this a lot when I carefully write an article, only to have some 
readers pick out a few words here and there and react to them, missing the 
meaning entirely, and often seeing the reverse of what I am saying.

allen 

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