We have once again had a flurry of exchange on the honey bee language controversy --- the fourth time in a little more than a year on various networks (this time primarily on the SOCINSCT network). Not much new seems to have emerged, particularly since bee language proponents have yet to address fully the list of 16 problems with the dance language hypothesis that I posted on the Internet last January. Some points, though, beg for further comment. However, Bruno Latour's 1987 comment (as quoted in the book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY...) applies here: "We have to understand first how many elements can be brought to bear on a controversy; once this is understood, the other problems will be easier to solve." Rather than attempt to reply to the several points raised in one lengthy message, I will post sequentially a few relatively short comments about each point raised in the last few weeks. ******** FIRST COMMENT (Just what is the bee language hypothesis?): We once had a concise statement of the language hypothesis, but too much evidence is now at variance with that original hypothesis (as outlined in the 16 points posted in January). Some individuals still have a deep attachment to the idea of a "language" use by honey bees but seem to no longer embrace any concise scientific statement of that hypothesis. Under the circumstances, Julian O'Dea's alternative ("idiothetic/mnemonic") hypothesis seems as likely as the dance language hypothesis as an explanation for the teleological question, "Why do bees dance?" (He asked: "But why has so little attention been paid to the possibility that the bees do the dances [in order to memorize] the location of resources?") Deep conviction to a hypothesis may reflect an unconscious commitment to a status quo attitude of the scientific community; however, as one scientist wrote (paraphrased): The strength of a conviction has no bearing on whether a scientific hypothesis is true or not. (In that connection, witness what happened with the "cold fusion" episode). Enlightment on that point may be found in one section of an excellent book, as follows: Fleck, Ludwik. 1935. Pp. 20-51 in GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF A SCIENTIFIC FACT. Univ. of Chicago Press. (translated into English and republished in 1979. [To order (only about US$12): 1-(800) 621-2736 --- ISBN: 0-226-25325-2] Look for the SECOND COMMENT that follows shortly (why "compromise" has little place in science). Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 893-2838 (UCSB office) Ecol., Evol., & Marine Biology (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Univ. of Calif., Santa Barbara (805) 963-8508 (home office & FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106