# "Dance language" controversy



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi,

Anyone interested in this issue is urged to (freely) subscribe to the animal behaviour list::

Send a message to [email protected], (with no subject, or signature), and with only: SUBSCRIBE ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR in the message text. 

After you are subscribed, you can send commands they offer, to the same e-mail address above, but add ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR after the command. 

Now command to be provided with posts from the Archives (between Dec. 26, 2005 & Jan. 13, 2006), and carefully read 5 long messages of mine on "The Greatest Goof in the History of Science".

-- 
Sincerely,
Ruth Rosin ("Prickly pear") Hi,

Anyone interested in this issue is urged to (freely) subscribe to the animal behaviour list::

Send a message to [email protected], (with no subject, or signature), and with only: SUBSCRIBE ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR in the message text. 

After you are subscribed, you can send commands they offer, to the same e-mail address above, but add ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR after the command. 

Now command to be provided with posts from the Archives (between Dec. 26, 2005 & Jan. 13, 2006), and carefully read 5 long messages of mine on "The Greatest Goof in the History of Science".

-- 
Sincerely,
Ruth Rosin ("Prickly pear")


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Welcome back. We missed you.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Dance language controversy?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Good to hear from you Ruth! Do you really, really believe this is the Greatest Goof in the History of Science or are "We" being a little bit dramatic?

I'll read them just the same. Just so you know, I'm going to have a cup of Herbal tea whilst I'm reading them.

Where's Jim F?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Dance language controversy?

These should take anyone interested in reading about the dance language controversy directly to Ruth Rosin's posts on dance language without the need to subscribe to a list:

http://tinyurl.com/aj2eu

http://tinyurl.com/at3ej

http://tinyurl.com/97dyd

http://tinyurl.com/9rfxo

http://tinyurl.com/95zsf

http://tinyurl.com/eyyn4

Additionally, Adrian Wenners views can be read here:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Welcome back Ruth. You certainly are . . . er . . . passionate about this.

Keith


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Joel:

No, I am not dramatizing at all! 

Once you carefully read my posts, you might become fully convinced of that, too. In fact, there is much more that is very disturbing about this case, that I have not even mentioned in my latest posts.

As just one such issue, let me only briefly note here that warning-signs of big trouble with the DL hypothesis were apparent not only in v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment (which leads to the conclusion that the DL hypothesis was stillborn). Instead, such warning-signs kept continually cropping up, in the form of experimental results obtained by DL supporters themselves, that were anomalous to the DL hypothesis.

The way DL supporters, starting with v. Frisch, dealt with such anomalies was to introduce ad hoc revisions, i.e. never experimentally confirmed, or even tested, auxiliary hypotheses, that made it possible to fit the anomalies within the revised version of the hypothesis. DL supporters were, however, obliged to introduce so many such auxiliary hypotheses, that they inevitably ended up contradicting one another, and sometimes even themselves (by not carefully investigating all the implications of each newly introduced auxiliary hypothesis).

The result is that by now no one even knows anymore what the DL hypothesis really stands for, beyond the core-claim that somehow, some where, some honeybees, use distance & direction information contained in foragers'-dances.

This means that you can not even test the hypothesis, because you do not know what exactly the hypothesis claims. And a hypothesis that can not be tested cannot qualify as a scientific hypothesis. Nonetheless, this kind of a DL hypothesis was judged by the 1973 Nobel Committee, to be a tested, and adequately experimentally confirmed hypothesis, to the point of meriting a Nobel Prize.

Most people who know of the DL hypothesis, know it only in the highly oversimplified, very elegant, attractive version, in which it is presented in popular publications, including v. Frisch's own (in Scientific American). The DL hypothesis is, instead, only a terribly ugly, useless mess!


----------



## RJ (Jan 22, 2006)

Instead of ranting and bashing the work or competent researchers why dont you state 1) the key elements of both hypotheses, 2) how they differ from one another and 3) what experimental designs would separate the two. I read your outline of an experiment that was supposed to confirm the odour hypothesis and it was not even close to an objective empirical evaluation of either hypothesis. Furthermore, are you suggesting that Wenner had the perfect design to support your 'odour-driven' hypothesis (i.e. it was a flawless design)? I beg to differ. If you want anyone to listen to your views, then I suggest focussing on hypothesis testing (ie. design a solid experiment and collect YOUR OWN data) rather useless lengthy commentaries.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Oh wow, RJ - you ARE new here, aren't you?








Please accept this flack vest as a token
of welcome from the group, and...
*DUCK!*

You will be sternly told that you MUST go read
several long tracts and slog through a wide
selection of stuff not published in the journals
(or only published in obscure journals)
to understand the scope of the worldwide and
decades-long conspiracy to keep the truth
from you.

While Ruth can offer many criticisms of the dance
language work done to date, these criticisms do
not provide constructive support for any specific
alternative communications mechanism.

So, a good model for the net position on the
sole subject about which Ruth obsesses is:

DANCE - Replace with "evolution"
ODOR - Replace with "intelligent design"
BEE TELEPATHY - Replace with "flying spaghetti monster"

With these subsitutions, the positions, tactics, 
and rhetoric employed are almost identical. 
(While I have tried to develop a "flying spaghetti
monster" movement by offering telepathy as a 3rd 
option, I have been less than successful, as most 
beekeepers apparently lack a sense of irony.)

Bottom line, even Adrian Wenner, the most
persisent critic of "dance" that has ever
held a hive tool, has said a number of times 
in public that he now considers further research 
in this area a waste of time and money better-spent 
on more practical issues, Ruth will solider on,
and fight "the good fight".

I'll ask again, as I always ask:

_*I want to hear about Ruth's bees!*_
She never even mentions even having any hives.
I would think she would have some interesting
personal observations of her own bees that 
would be much more revealing than talking about 
nothing but other people's work.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>These should take anyone interested 

Dick, all your tiny urls (at least the first 3, I didn't try the others) take me to a JISCmail login page. I would love to read some of Ruth's views on the dance language controversy. I didn't even know there was a dance language controversy...

Jim, I've got my own flak jacket thanks, and iron undies. I'm ready.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{BEE TELEPATHY - Replace with "flying spaghetti monster"}

Now that's funny, I don't care which side of the dance controversy you're on.  

RJ-Very well stated, and your 1st. post-welcome. Oh, Jim's right, DUCK!

Ruth, I don't know what you do for a living. You really should apply to Cornell, NYC etc. to get a grant and do some direct research on bees. I could see hives at Brooklyn Gardens that would add to their effort in many ways, be a good public display and give you the opportunity to further test you theroies. You certainly have the stick to it tive ness. Of course you need to be objective.

You'll never convince beekeepers of anything unless you've kept bees, there is something there beyond the sum of the parts, it's kind of alchemy.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> You'll never convince beekeepers of anything 
> unless you've kept bees

You're kidding - Ruth has *NEVER* kept bees herself?
Not even an observation hive?
But how could she claim to be a "researcher" without any bees? 
How could she presume to even discuss bees at
such a detailed level?

I'm confused.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Jim Fischer>
I'm confused.

I think I've heard others make this argument for you!
















<Jim Fischer>
... now considers further research 
in this area a waste of time and money ...

I think this is so short-sighted it's insane. Once we figure out exactly the bee dance mode of communications it will be much easier for us to have little robot bees that dance and send our minion bees (preferably AHBs) off to do their dasturdly deeds and take over the world.
[WAHAHAHAAA!]
It seems to me to be preferential to training them because just as soon as one class is taught it dies.










"... same thing we do every night Pinky..."


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

George, I doubted many would trouble themselves to subscribe to that list, so I offered to make some tinyURL's for Ruth so her remarks could be read without having to subscribe to another Listserv list. They work fine here, but I did subscribe to the list. You may need to subscribe to the list???

If you truly have an interest in why some doubt the "dance language" the last URL should take you to Adrian Wenner's writings in the BeeSource POV section. His book "Anatomoy of a Controversy" is another good source. Norm Gary writes about the long-standing debate that seems to have such a polarizing effect on some in the current edition of 'The Hive and the Honey Bee' (pages 293-296).


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>If you truly have an interest in why some doubt the "dance language"....

Dick- I've read the section in "The Hive and the Honey Bee" and am vaguely familiar with Adrian's opinions from things he's said on BEE-L. I know what the dance language is as much as the next semi-informed beekeeper which is to say, I know of it, but not much about it. I knew there was a controversy, I figured I'd get around to looking into it more when an opportunity presented itself. This may be that opportunity...

I don't think I want to subscribe to yet another listserv at this time. Perhaps I'll start with Adrian's work.

Thanks


----------



## RJ (Jan 22, 2006)

Jim,

Very well put and thanks for the jacket - although I doubt that her shots will ever hit the mark. Unfortunately, I had read a few of her posts before I was so irritated that I had to respond (I could not take anymore after reading her 'proposed experiment'). Like you (and prob. many others), I had the feeling that I was reading the rants of someone with an 'intelligent design' mentality. I doubt that taking a course on the scientific method will help her at this point.....


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

While I do not necessarily agree with Ruth, I don't think her arguments and "evidence" is her problem.

How is it often put? "It's not what you say, it is how you say it that counts".

Keith


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Well, why can't I get anyone to even taste
(let alone drink) the Kool-Aid on "bee telepathy"? 

I started promoting "bee telepathy" long before
anyone suggested the "flying spaghetti monster"
theory, and FSM has tee-shirts, websites,
and a big fan club.

Well, at least Ruth has pulled a "Dee Lusby",
and started her own little online group so as
to avoid any possibility of discussion with
anyone who might ask pointed questions. That's
sad, and kinda pathetic, [edit by mod]

And to think that the unwashed masses were
encouraged to get onto the internet with the
intent of implementing the "global village",
uniting all around *larger* campfires.

Sad.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Well, why can't I get anyone to even taste
(let alone drink) the Kool-Aid on "bee telepathy"? "

Because Jim, I just dont' think it is practical to outfit that many bees with with the necessary tinfoil hats

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Well, at least Ruth has pulled a "Dee Lusby",
and started her own little online group so as
to avoid any possibility of discussion with
anyone who might ask pointed questions."

She started a group?

Keith


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> She started a group?

Yeah, scroll up, that's how this thread got
started - the announcement of the formation
of a mailing list.

I can't wait to join, but 7.62mm rounds have
gone way up in price recently, I guess due
to all the unpleasantness going on, and
I would clearly need to stock up before
daring to join THAT discussion.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I just dont' think it is practical to outfit that many bees with with the necessary tinfoil hats

But they already have antennae..


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To DICK ALLEN,

The only valuable comment I have encountered here so far is the information that your URLs to my post on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list can not be opened.

several other lists, and I have just received similar complaints from the COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY list of TCU; which is much more important to me, because it comprises mostly scientists working in animal behavior. I advised them to wait until I can straightened that problem.

Now, you say you are subscribed to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list (which I had, incidentally, already left), and that the URLs "work here". 

What exactly does one need to do to make them work???

Suppose one subscribes to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list, how does he then have to use your "tinyurls" to open my posts???

I already sent you an URGENT message about this to your personal e-mail address!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Jim,

She joined a list that already existed (I am on it too), and I must agree with her that even though it is a list that is supposed to be about animal behavior, there is precious little discussion about the topic on there. Too bad too, in my line of work such a list would have been interesting.

She apparently was asked to move on, but I suspect that was due more to attitude than content.

Ruth - you cannot read the posts unless you are a member. If you are a member, clicking on the tiny urls prompts you to login, once logged in, each of them opens with a click. 

Perhaps you might put your thoughts in a concise, *brief* document and ask Barry to archive it here, much like he has done for many similar controversial topics. I can't speak for him, but he has posted the Lusby stuff and Wenners materials. 

Then you could direct interested people to the material instead of joining a group and firing off 5 very long emails that most will simply not read - even if they might have been interested. 

Keith


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

Your suspicions are way off the mark!

I was asked not to continue to post to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list the type of meesages I had posted there, and so was another list-member, because the "guidelines" (specified by the owner of the list), state in the last sentence (which I initially apparently had not even bothered to read), that the list is NOT open to discussions of issues in animal behavior; after the previous sentence states exactly the opposite (i.e. that the list is open to any information that might be of interest to people studying animal behavior).

Re the tinyurls: Do you mean to say that if I am a member, all I need to do is click on an URL, which will tell me to log in etc? Do you mean that the tinyurls "know" what I need to login?

Your advice that I should write a concise "brief" message, and let Barry handle the matter, is totally inacceptable. You can not write a "brief" message about a controversy that has become so unnecessarily complex and convoluted, as to drag on for almost 40 years.

I could of course compose a very "brief" message, like so: In v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment (published in the early 20's of last century) he used a foragers'-feeder that was very close to the hive, and bees of a strain that performs round dances up to a distance of close to 100 m. from the hive. His foragers, therefore, performed only round dances. Recruits found all the dishes with the foragers' food-odor, and none of the dishes with a different food-odor, up to 1,000 m. from the hiver (the greatest distance then tested). 

Since recruits found, among others, dishes to which the foragers were not flying, and could not even have known existed, he fully justifiably concluded that they find food NOT by following foragers in flight all the way from the hive to the food, NOR by using any information about the location of any food, but by use of odor ALONE. His later, sensational DL hypothesis (which states among others, that round dances result in recruits finding food with the foragers' food odor, ONLY within the round dance range), was, therefore STILLBORN.

I had already published that repeatedly (not necessarily in these exact words), and it got DL opponents NOWHERE! We cannot get very far without explaining what happened later, as well as why, and how it happened. And this can NOT be done briefly at all; as you will undoubtedly begin to understand if you carefully read my posts on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{The only valuable comment I have encountered here so far is the information that your URLs to my post on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list can not be opened.}

But then that really is the meesage isn't it Ruth? You don't think what anyone else has to say has any value. You keep telling us that, we hear you loud and clear. Now hear this- No one hears what you say because you haven't learned to how to turn down the rude volume. People keep saying it, you keep not hearing it and then are stumped that because no one really cares what's being said. Keep on though, we'll just keep on not caring until you find that rude volume control. Best of luck in your endeavors at any rate.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Re the tinyurls: Do you mean to say that if I am a member, all I need to do is click on an URL, which will tell me to log in etc?"

Yes, at least it does that when I click on them from any one of several machines (I just tested it)

"Do you mean that the tinyurls "know" what I need to login?"

No

Tinyurls are simply there to re-direct the browser to the real url, but make it easier to post long urls to forums like this.

Having said that, when you click on one, your browser will try to access the message, prompting the host server to ask you to log in. Once you do that, you can click on the others and the host server knows you are logged in and lets you read the messages.

You have to be a member to see the messages.

I did indeed read your messages and I believe they can be reduced in length by at least a third to a half. I do not see why having them posted on a forum such as this would be unacceptable. (And I certainly do not speak for Barry - he may not have the space) but it has worked for others. You might find it totally unacceptable, but in how many forums have found your present strategy acceptable? Is your goal to persuade people that your information is valuable and accurate, or to merely shout from the virtual rooftops? So far I would suggest, and you seem to admit, that you have not been very successful in getting your message aqccross. See Joels post above, I suspect he is voicing what many are thinking.

This strategy (posting to a website and sending people over) works very well for Dee Lusby, she continually sends people to read up on her theories - and they do. Then again she does it with a simple line or two, isn't condescending and is hardly "prickly", but that's just her, she's funny that way.

Keith "save me from crusaders" Benson

PS: Do you ahve bees?

[ January 25, 2006, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>...you cannot read the posts unless you are a member...

My apologies to everyone for the confusion caused by my URL's. I did join that list and made the URL's thinking it would allow non-list people who wanted to read what Ruth has written the opportunity to do wo without having to go through the hassle of subscribing to another email list. Apparently they only take non-members to the log-in screen. So, in order to read those posts it does look as though you will need to subscribe or as Keith mentioned maybe Barry can post them in the POV section.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

hi,

After checking I found out that the "tinyurls" Dick Allen provided cannot be opened by any one except him, even if you subscribe to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list.

I could, of course, post here copies of all my very long posts on the "dance language" controversy. But in view of the mostly silly comments I have received here, I doubt that anyone would care to plow all the way through even the first of these posts. However, if anyone wants copies, contact me at ([email protected]), and I will send you a copy of the first post. You can then let me know if you want to read more.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Benson,

I deliberately re-subscribed to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list and tried the "tinyurls" Dick Allen provided, but the computer only offered me a chance to login in his name with his password (which I, of course, do not even know). And when I tried to substitute my username and enter my pssword, nothing happened.

Other than that, I did not join this specific list in order to be taught how to do science, or how to present my analytical work. And I certainly did not join in order to entertain list-members; although serious scientist would undoubtedly find something morbidly hilarious in the repeated attempt of staunch DL supporters to experimentally confirm (at tremendous cost) the stillborn DL hypothesis, which died quietly more than 80 years ago. Moreover, each time they delude themselves into believing they had finally succeeded in "reviving the dead", this is immediately touted all over the world.

You seem to deliberately view my statements through spectacles, heavily tinted with mean-spiritedness. When I repeatedly said that, in almost 40 years, DL opponents have not yet succeeded in putting the DL hypothesis to rest, I specifically explained that the "scientific establishment" has done its best to suppress our "heresy", in many different ways; and the 1973 Nobel Prize in Medicine & Physiology, is just one such example. 

You are not trying to insinuate that the Nobel Committee awarded a joint 1973 Nobel Prize to Karl von Frisch, and to the two co-founders of European Ethology, because of the tone of my critiques of the DL hypothesis, are you?. The first time I was ever able to publish anything against the DL hypothesis was in 1975! Or are you trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize carried no weight in the eyes of the scientific community? 

You will have to excuse me if I completely ignore your opinion, as well as the opinion of others like you. I shall continue to do so anyway, totally irrespective of whether you will, or you will not excuse me!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Ruth, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself, your experience with bees, and how/when/why you decided to tackle this dance language controversy in the first place?

George-


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"To Benson"

Please call me Keith, I haven't been called Benson since high school hockey.

"I deliberately re-subscribed to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list and tried the "tinyurls" Dick Allen provided, but the computer only offered me a chance to login in his name with his password (which I, of course, do not even know). And when I tried to substitute my username and enter my password, nothing happened."

Mmm - I guess I don't know what to tell you, I simply took Dick's login out and put mine in and it worked. I did this with a netscape browser. I still think a website somewhere with your arguments would be a good thing.

"Other than that, I did not join this specific list in order to be taught how to do science, or how to present my analytical work. 

You seem to deliberately view my statements through spectacles, heavily tinted with mean-spiritedness.

Perhaps that is my response to the condescending tone of your messages. In any event I will certainly try to be less mean-spirited. 

You are not trying to insinuate that the Nobel Committee awarded a joint 1973 Nobel Prize to Karl von Frisch, and to the two co-founders of European Ethology, because of the tone of my critiques of the DL hypothesis, are you?.

I never said that.

Or are you trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize carried no weight in the eyes of the scientific community?

I was speaking about what you have said on this and other beekeeping forums, and what you posted on the animal behavior list. More specifically I was remarking on the tone of your diatribes. 

You will have to excuse me if I completely ignore your opinion, as well as the opinion of others like you. I shall continue to do so anyway, totally irrespective of whether you will, or you will not excuse me!

And therein lies the problem, you have no respect for anyone elses opinion, and any decent communications person will tell you that not only does your audience pick up on that, but it kills any respect they may have for you. People generally listen to those who are willing to listen to them. 

Ruth, you have been posting this material, and bouncing on and off of forums for some time. I have no illusions that you will listen to what the members of this board are telling you, i would be stunned if you did not simply forge on, ineffective by your own admission. Good luck!

Keith

[ January 26, 2006, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## RJ (Jan 22, 2006)

"Other than that, I did not join this specific list in order to be taught how to do science, or how to present my analytical work. And I certainly did not join in order to entertain list-members; although serious scientist would undoubtedly find something morbidly hilarious in the repeated attempt of staunch DL supporters to experimentally confirm (at tremendous cost) the stillborn DL hypothesis, which died quietly more than 80 years ago." 

Ruth,

That is the point - you do need to be taught how to 'do science' and any sort of serious scientist(especially those that do research on bees) realizes that as soon as you attempt to criticize the work of others to support your view instead of doing research yourself. Let your data do the talking, as they say, and present all of YOUR research (a list your empirical studies published in peer reviewed journals would be fine- sorry commentaries in American Bee Journal do not count). Moreover, give us an empirical framework by addressing the three points that I mentioned in my first post.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Hey, that's an idea - maybe Ruth can ask Barry
to either add her documents to Adrian's portion
of the POV section, or get her own section.

This will allow Ruth to make her views publicly
available and easy to find. No registration or
log-in required to read.

Understand that it is not that I agree with
Ruth's opinions, I just agree that she has a
right to express an opinion, something that is
more difficult to do in the rough-and-tumble
environment of a "discussion group", moreso
when Ruth does not consider any of us her equals.

> it got DL opponents NOWHERE!

Argument alone never does get an idea anywhere.
Rhetoric can't bridge the gap between contention
and data.

I think it is interesting that "Dance" is never
presented as being mutually exclusive with at
least some use of odor, the most common assumption
being that odor (including things like "footprint
pheromone") certainly would be used at close
range to help a forager select individual blossoms
of interest. "Flower fidelity", a well-known
aspect for forager behavior implies that bees can
and do use cues like visual appearance and odor
to be consistent in the type of plants upon which
they forage.

But "odor" supporters don't want to even consider,
let alone concede, that "odor" might coexist with
dance, each being a mere part of the holistic 
process. 

So, even though bees can be trained to sugar
syrup feeding stations handled with care to
assure that they remain odorless, odor proponents
want to dismiss these experiments as being
nothing but examples of sloppy workmanship, and
offer explanations of "odor plumes" or "locality
odors", mechanisms that stretch the bounds of
not just chemistry, but credibility itself.

Pick any random Nobel prize, and you'll find
someone who is convinced that they can win
their own Nobel (or equivalent fame) by proving
that the Nobel-winning work was wrong. It is
a long-shot gamble, at best.

The better way to built "street cred" so that
one can start to get invited to the sort of 
parties where hard liquor is served, science
issues are reviewed mano a mano, and unattached 
members of the opposite sex are in attendance, is 
to ask yourself:</font>
What are the most challenging problems in your field?</font>
What are the problems that, if solved, would
yield the most benefit?</font>
Are you working on one of them?</font>
If not, why not?</font>


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

I shall be very brief.

1. I DO have experience in beekeeping. My Dad was an amateur beekeeper.

2. I became involved in the DL controversy, because it concerns the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science; which I, as a scientist interested primarily in this field, consider a very IMPORTANT issue.

3. In my book in order to do good science, you need to AVOID, experimenting on your own in order to solve a long-solved problem, which v. Frisch himself had already fully adequately solved more than 80 years ago; in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, which led him to fully justifiably conclude that honeybee -recruits use odor alone, and NO information about the location of any food. What I needed to do, instead, was to investigate, where, how, and why science, LATER, went all wrong on this issue.

4. My posts are NOT intended for anyone who is not interested in this issue. And I intend to soon leave you again.


----------



## RJ (Jan 22, 2006)

So, you have no research of your own (or bees for that matter), no idea on what a competing hypothesis is(let alone the key components of the original DL hypothesis or your own hypothesis) and no idea how to go about designing controlled experiments that would be necessary to tease apart key elements of both hypotheses. Yet, you want people in a scientific forum (or any forum) to take you seriously - you have to be kidding. To say that you need to avoid doing your own research to do good science is prob. the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard - so then the experiments of everyone involved with the DL hypothesis are bad science (including Wenner - you cannot have it both ways) and your opinion is the only good science out there? What I find most intriguing in all of this is that you try to engage people in discussions by claiming that there are serious flaws in the research of others but ' intend to soon leave' (i.e. run away) when the same people ask you about the science (or lack thereof) underlying your view.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To RJ,

I would probably be only wasting my time, and yours, trying to respond to you, because you obviously understood nothing of what I said, and, consequently, you attribute to me ideas I never had, and claims I never made. 

I never even remotely suggested that wenner's work on the DL hypothesis was bad science. In my post on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list (as well as elsewhere), I explained in detail that Wenner had to unknowingly re-discover on his own, and publish (in 1967), what v. Frisch had already discovered and published in 1923, i.e. that honeybee-recruits use odor alone, and NO information about the location of any food. I also explained, in detail, how and why it so happened, that Wenner had to do it all over again.

But why should you be concerned with such issues, which you do not even consider real science?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

So Ruth, why are the bees dancing?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

It is true that at one time it was believed that the dances are "instinctive" (genetically pre-determined), and must, therefore, be adaptive as one whole behavior. This, together with the fact the dance involves the expenditure of a considerable amount of time & energy on the part of both "dancer" & "dance-attendant", and the conclusion that the dances can have no conceivable adaptive value except to serve in a DL which utilizes the spatial information contained in the dances, led to the conclusion that the DL must exist. This argument is known as the Teleological-Evolutionary arguiment in favor of the DL hypothesis.

The argument is faulty, because there is no reason to believe that dancing behavior is genetically pre-determined, nor that it is one behavior. Instead, it is apparently a combination of many different, separate responses. The argument is also faulty, because the experimental evidence has shown, starting with v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment, that recruits do not use that spatial information.

The problem of what causes the foragers to dance thus becomes a totally separate problem. Honeybees do not have a DL, irrespective of whether I can, or cannot provide an answer to that problem. But, to help discredit the Teleological-Evolutionary argument, I worked on that problem, and was able to come up with a highly plausible solution. 

For more details look up my publication in ABJ (American Bee Journal, vol. 140(2)Feb.: 98 (200).
This, incidentally,is not exactly an easy publication for non-professionals.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Ruth, thank you for responding to Dr. Fischers (and others) probing questions and assuring us that you do indeed know what a honey bee looks like. I, for one, was unconcerned over your experience or inexperience with bees, but It seems as though some were worried sick that you had never seen one. Hopefully, that very important issue is now resolved. 

[ January 27, 2006, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi Dick,

In those days we were still using the local, vicious Mid-Eastern bees (which is were I come from). And once, when we were harvesting the honey, I got more than a hundred bee-stings in one day, in spite of wearing fully protective gear. Didn't cause me any harm, but I guess I passed the test!

Having hands-on experience in beekeeping was helpful, but only in a very limited sense.

The truth of the matter is, that scientists must very often learn from work done by others, and be able to evaluate such work, even if it deals with animals they have never seen.


----------



## RJ (Jan 22, 2006)

Ruth,

In your previous post you said "In my book in order to do good science, you need to AVOID, experimenting on your own in order to solve a long-solved problem.." What do you mean by this? It reads as though you are saying that you consider experimenting on your own as bad science (this is your argument for not doing your own research - a weak one at best). If so, then it follows that people that do their own research on long-lasting questions (like communication systems in bees) are doing bad science - well guess what, Wenner also did his own research on the matter and by your definintion of good science he must have been doing bad science (in case you cannot see my point, I am saing that your rationale for not doing your own research is ridiculous not that you think Wenner does 'bad science'). The short of it is that I have read most of your lengthy posts and I am very familiar with the literature on bee behavior(including communication). All I want is for you to present your view in a more scientific framework (In other words ADDRESS MY THREE POINTS). Your refusal to do so indicates that the reason for your posts is not to engage in an academic discussion on communication in honeybees. I am not sure what your agenda is, but it has no place in any forum related to ACADEMIC discussions of animal behaviour - philosophy or religion discussion groups may be a better option for you.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm puzzled as to whether the controversy lies in whether or not a dance language exists in honey bees, or if the controversy lies in von Frisch's hypothesis specifically? If it's in von Frisch's hypothesis, what changes should be made to remedy the faults? 

I keep reading posts about people who summarily reject a dance language in bees because they've found evidence of searching by odor. I've read Wenner's POV; to me, it seems as though he wants to replace a dance language with a language based on sound. If that's actually the way a "language" in bees works, "dancing" may simply be the necessary physical movements to produce the sounds used in the language. Think of our vocal language -- our lips (and, when a lot of people talk, our hands) move when we produce sounds. Is the movement of lips the language, or is the language contained in the sound waves?

In reading through these posts, I kept thinking, "Why do bees only have to have ONE way to locate flowers?" Then I read Jim F's post; his paragraphs fit nicely with the conflict I saw between the two sides:

"I think it is interesting that "Dance" is never
presented as being mutually exclusive with at
least some use of odor, the most common assumption
being that odor (including things like "footprint
pheromone") certainly would be used at close
range to help a forager select individual blossoms
of interest. "Flower fidelity", a well-known
aspect for forager behavior implies that bees can
and do use cues like visual appearance and odor
to be consistent in the type of plants upon which
they forage.

But "odor" supporters don't want to even consider,
let alone concede, that "odor" might coexist with
dance, each being a mere part of the holistic 
process." -Jim Fischer

I think of the way humans locate things. For example, let's say that someone was looking for a gas station in a city. He could simply look for a station, either directly or by searching the horizon for one of those tall signs that gas stations generally seem to feel are necessary. He could also get directions from another person, either by asking for directions or looking at some printed directions. We use different methods of locating resources; why couldn't bees use both some form of language and odor searching?

Along a slightly different line, there's no genetic component to the dances of honey bees? Why is it that all species within the genus Apis seem to use some form of dance in their colonies? Doesn't that suggest some genetic component?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To RJ,

When I stated that I need to avoid carrying my own experiments to solve a problem already fully adequately solved long ago, I referred specifically to the problem whether honeybee-recruits do, or do not use spatial information contained in foragers dances. Had you carefully read my posts, you would have realized that the problem had already been fully adequately solved by v. Frisch himself, when he justifiably concluded (in 1923), on the basis of his first study on honeybee-recruitment, that the answer is NO! You would also have understood that Wenner, and other DL opponents could not have known that, because after the inception of his DL hypothesis, v. Frisch excluded mention of the results he obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment (which grossly contradicted his DL hypothesis), and substituted, instead, the results of two new tests (like that first study), with round dances, but with a drastically different experimental design. This time the results fully fit the expectations from his DL hypothesis. (The results of those two new tests, actually done in 1962, can be found in his definitive, 1967 book on the honeybee DL, translated from the original 1965 German edition.)

Since v. Frisch repeatedly claimed to have experimentally confirmed his DL hypothesis, DL opponents naturally examined only his evidence for these claims, and did not bother to check his pre-DL publications, where we knew that such evidence could not be found. 

This why Wenner had to unknowingly rediscover on his own, and publish in 1967, what v. Frisch had already discovered and published in 1923. 

Little did we know what we could find in v. Frisch's pre-DL publications, until I accidentally stumbled on a short publication by v. Frisch in the 1939 Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution in the US. That publication was a reprint of a 1937 British publication by v. Frisch, based on a guest-lecture he had delivered at the University college of London in 1937, where he summarized ALL his earlier research on honeybees, including his first study on honeybee-recruitment, and his fully justified conclusion from that study.

Wenner did very good work, but he had to rediscover on his own what v. Frisch had already discovered and published more than 40 years earlier, because Wenner could not have known about a publication which v. Frisch later chose to hide.

I know that the problem had already been fully adequately solved by v. Frisch in 1923. It was again, fully adequately solved again, in 1967, by Wenner, who could not have know that v. Frisch had already solved it. Nonetheless, you dare demand that I carry out my own experiments, in order to try and solve this already fully adequately, twice solved problem, yet a third time; or turn to lists that deal with religion!

[edit by mod] Perhaps you should carry out your own experiments to again solve the problem whether the earth is, or is not flat?!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

Honeybee-recruits do not use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances. Period!

If you still do not understand that, see my response to RJ, above.

All your comments on this issue are irrelevant.

I do not pay any attention to what Jim believes he thinks, [edit by admin]

[ February 07, 2006, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

P.S.

I forgot to respond to one comment of yours. No one ever said that "there's no genetic component to the dances of honeybees". All I said was that dancing behavior was not genetically predetermined.

All individual traits (including behavioral traits) of all living organisms, develop in the individual organism under inseparable (!) effects of both (!)genes and environment. 

This is fundamentally different from claiming that any individual trait is genetically PREDETERMINED. Just consider that the life of any one-celled fertilized egg, can be snuffed at that very stage, and you will realize that it is not genetically predetermined that the egg will develop into anything beyond that stage.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Nonetheless, you dare demand"

"All your comments on this issue are irrelevant"

"I do not pay any attention to what Jim believes he thinks, [edit by admin]"

Ruth, it's the warm fuzzy way you write to others that have people flocking in droves to read the details of your arguments.

LOL

Keith

[ February 07, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Ruth, I've read, and re-read your response to my question "Why do bees dance?" but I can't tell for sure from what you said if you answered my question or not. I don't think you did. I believe you said you came up with "a highly plausible solution" to the "problem" in an attempt to discredit the Teleological-Evolutionary argument that DL was "instinctive" but then you referred me to an ABJ article which I do not have access to. For that matter, I'm not sure I'm really interested in the "details" of a plausible argument that discredits a theory attempting to prove something I don't understand in the first place. I guess I don't care if bee dancing is instinct or not.

So, I'm left with the unanswered question, why do bees dance? It's a simple question, really. I'd like to think it could be answered in simple terms that even I can understand. If you don't know why bees dance, then just say so. I'm ok with that, though I think it's strange that you could feel so strongly about what the DL is NOT and not have at least an opinion of what the DL IS.

I'm perfectly willing to accept, at least for the sake of argument, your assertion that honey bee recruits don't use spatial information contained in forager's dances. Now, please, if you can, answer my question: Why do bees dance? For what purpose? To what end?


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>I do not pay any attention to what Jim believes he thinks, [edit by admin]!

Ruth, you are being naughty! Whether your statement is true or not,  those are the kind of things that will get you tossed off this board, then you won't get a chance to storm out saying you won't be back.

Barry will not allow personal attacks.

[ February 07, 2006, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Why do bees dance? For what purpose? To what end?

Because their HAPPY!  

Don't you want to dance when your happy?  

That's how I feel when I find a surplus of honey, I want to SHARE! I want to tell the world! I want to kick my heals up and DANCE!

YEOW! I FEEL GOOD!  

Share some honey with your honey!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To George Fergusson,

You are willing to accept that honeybee-recruits do not use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances, just for the FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT? How about accepting it FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE; which is what scientists are obliged to do? If you did just that, you would understand that the the honeybee DL controversy, which is a controversy over whether honeybee-recruits do, or do not use that spatial information is a SCIENTIFICALLY CLOSED CASE!

I did not explain what makes honeybees dance. I advised you, and anyone else who is interested, to read one page in ABJ. If you do not get the journal, try to obtain a copy of that one page from someone who has access to the journal. Some members of this list undoubtedly subscribe to the journal. Try Barry.

You stood forewarned, however, that The answer to this question is not quite so simple. It requires a scientific background to understand. Sorry, but scientific explanations are not just "a cup o' tea" that you can order to be prepared and served exactly to suit your personal liking. 

I could, of course, explain the science involved, starting from ABC; which would require a very long, detailed explanation. Sad as it may be, I have never aspired to become a popularizer of science, for which I have neither the talent, nor the patience.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Keith,

Sorry! But I have never been able to suffer fools gladly.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Bullseye,

Whast's Barry got to do with the BeeSource chatroom? Does he police it?

Other than that, I see you are in the mood for merriment; which is very nice!

However, to strike a more serious note, honeybees are not human, and they do not even dance. Scientists only dubbed a certain behavior of honeybees: "dancing", for lack of a better word, and because the behavior reminds humans of human dancing.

If honeybees were human, they would probably "go on a strike", and demand "minimum wages"!


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Whast's Barry got to do with the BeeSource chatroom? Does he police it?

OK, you are a bit confused. Let me try to enlighten you a bit about where we are.

Here we have a web site called *Beesource.com*, within is a *Bulletin Board* called the *Exchange*, with subdivisions called *Forums*, that has subjects called *Threads* where we make *Posts* in which we carry on conversations.

This Forum is for people that want to post information about the Chatroom that is a totally different site where live time conversations are carried on when people are logged in, usually in the evenings. It is not monitored and not censored, you may say ANYTHING you want there with no reprocussions, but I will warn you that it is filled with many little messages, anacronims, and graemlins. Mostly small talk and no meaningful conversations, unless you invite someone into a private room for some private fun... (yes, you can go there...)  

The chatroom site is here:

http://www.bee-l.com/beesourcechat.htm 

(Sorry folks  )

You will have to register with your own name and password to log in.

Normally a Thread like this one that you started would have been posted in either the main Forum where general topics of discussion should be or in the Tailgater section where more off topic discussion are kept.

>Whast's Barry got to do with the BeeSource?

Barry Birkey owns this (Beesource) web site and you agreed to the terms and conditions to use it when you registered as a member.

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=agree_review 

And if you do not live by those rules of conduct you will be banned by the owner, Barry, overlord and prevayor of all that is Beesource.

Tread lightly and mind your P's and Q's  

Good luck!, and play nice.

[ January 28, 2006, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: BULLSEYE BILL ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>a SCIENTIFICALLY CLOSED CASE!

I hope never to hear those words again in any conversation I am engaged in. Hearing those words means it's time for me to get up and leave because I'm not talking to a scientist, I'm talking to a zealot with a vested interest in their beliefs, one who has lost their objectivity to think and see clearly. Science is not a closed book. Everything there is to know has not been written yet and much of what has been written has not or ultimately will not stand the test of time. Just because we believe a theory today doesn't mean it won't be replaced tommorow with a different theory that better fits the facts and evidence.


----------



## honeyman46408 (Feb 14, 2003)

""This Forum is for people that want to post information about the Chatroom that is a totally different site where live time conversations are carried on when people are logged in, usually in the evenings. It is not monitored and not censored, you may say ANYTHING you want there with no reprocussions, but I will warn you that it is filled with many little messages, anacronims, and graemlins. Mostly small talk and no meaningful conversations, unless you invite someone into a private room for some private fun... (yes, you can go there...)""

BUT in can bee moderated by a MODERATOR and has some built in protection ( words you cant use) we meet in the evening most of the time, some serious talk and some FRIENDLY jabs and jokes some of us have devloped (long distance) friendships. The "room" has comercial queen breeders,sideline queen breeders, new Beekeepers with a lot of questions that all (most) are glad to answer so if you like GOOD CLEAN FUN and vesiting and exchange of beekeeping ideas come on in if not good luck in the beeyard.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Because their HAPPY!

Well thanks Bill, that at least is a simple answer that my tiny pea brain can understand!

If they're so happy, why don't they sing? Or do they.... hmm...


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Fergusson,

I already noted that I did not join the list to be taught how to do science. Science in general is, of course, wide open and ever expanding. Contrary to your belief, however, some scientific problems are indeed already closed cases, that need not be investigated any further. The problem whether the earth is, or is not flat, is one such problem. The problem whether honeybee-recruits use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances, is another such problem!

Sorry, but you have just heard from me exactly the kind of words you were hoping never to hear again.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Bullseye and Honeyman,

Barry is not going to boot me out, because I know he is all for Wenner, and so am I.

I believe I have discussed the honeybee DL controversy more than enough in this forum, and I do not really want advice on beekeeping. So, I'm ready to leave again.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Barry is not going to boot me out, because I know he is all for Wenner}

Ruth, Barry does not exile people from the list because they agree or disagree with him. The list is moderated according to rules we all read when we join ( I assume you didn't). Nothing you've posted here would likely be cause of any concerns. Making active debate over beekeeping issues is what this post is all about to help us all better understand what we are doing and better manage our bees.

I of course could not read the tiny URL's either. Some of your post have been thought provoking and better stated than in the past. It helps having the brief background information so we can understand your perspective.

A question I have is once this particular discipline is clear relating to behavior and stimulus how would we apply it to better our efforts? What impact does resolving this issue have on our industry, in your opinion?

[ January 28, 2006, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>in can bee moderated by a MODERATOR and has some built in protection ( words you cant use) 

WHAT? Could I have been WRONG! ED! I had no idea it was monitored, really. It's been quite a while since I'd been there, mainly because I have to disable my security settings to use it, and I don't like to do that. 

And I swear that I saw swearing there, not that I would do such a thing...  

>Nothing you've posted here would likely be cause of any concerns.

The yellow flag is up for personal attacks, I've been around long enough to know. You don't Dis 'Himself" without drawing someones ire. Albeit humorus as it is.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>If they're so happy, why don't they sing? 

Because they don't know the words!  
That's why they humm.


----------



## RJ (Jan 22, 2006)

Ruth - silly? the world is flat? What planet are you from? Your responses to all of the posts so far have shown you to be so far removed from anything scientific that you should not even use the word. For whatever reason, you do not want to answer even basic questions such as 'Why do bees dance?'. I 100% agree with George's reply to your 'scientifically closed case' comment - it is very clear that this issue is your religion and any attempt to engage you in a scientific discussion is pointless.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"I believe I have discussed the honeybee DL controversy more than enough in this forum"

That's just it Ruth - you have discussed nothing, simply stated your personal opinion, mentioned your opinion of some obscure documents by v. Frisch (which the majority of people ahve limited access to - by your own admission), suggested that this subject was really beyond there level of the readership here and run off. 

FWIW, the readership here spans from layperson to well educated scientist. And neither has cornered the market on good ideas.

"Scientifically closed case". That's one of the sorriest things I have seen posted on this board. If the case was closed why would you need to flit about the internet combatting the DL theory?

Keith 

People are zealous for a cause when they are not quite positive that it is true - Bertrand Russell

[ January 28, 2006, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To RJ,

There is no point in trying to engage in any scientific discussion with you, because this requires being able to think straight. All I said about the "flat" earth is, that there is no need to investigate any further whether honeybee-recruits use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances, anymore than there is need to investigate further whether the earth is flat. Both problems had been fully adequately solved long ago, with the answer in the negative! And both cases are, therefore, closed!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

You obviously never genuinely attempted to stop being "mean-spirited".

have never been one of Russel's zealots, preaching a cause they are not sure about. Instead, I am a responsible scientist, trying to correct grave errors that I am perfectly sure about.

I need to do it over & over again, because staunch DL supporters, the "scientific establishment", and the general public, have been brain-washed to believe that honeybees have a DL, to the point where they cannot even conceive of the possibility that such a DL never existed, to the point where the refuse to "see" what you show them. Their responses range from the irrelevant, to the utterly amusing. They are, in fact, akin to some astronomers of Galileo's time, who refused to even look to see "sun-spots", because they "knew" that "the sun was perfect, and could have no blemishes on it." So, I simply have to try to do better!

I was not "flitting" across the Internet, but simply searching for an appropriate list that is maintained by scholars, intended for those interested in the behavioral sciences, and open to discussions of issues in animal behavior. I have very recently finally found just that kind of list.

I never sent members of the BeeSource chatroom to consult any obscure publications by anyone. And I've had enough of your offensive comments!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Joel,

The impact the issue would have on the beekeeping industry is to re-direct honeybee-researchers to attempts to send honeybees to desired crops by use of odor alone, using a "technique" which v. Frisch had already investigated many years ago. He has a very brief chapter about it in his massive 1967 book on the DL, because by then he erroneously concluded (based on his groundless DL hypothesis), that the "technique was useful only for food near the hive.

Other than that, can you tell me how to UNSUBSCRIBE off the BeeSource chatroom list? I sent 2 queries to the "Contact us", but they never responded.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To RJ,

P.S. 

I directed you to a specific page in ABJ, for an answer to your question "Why honeybees dance". I also warned you that the answer is not quite so simple. But I can't help that.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>can you tell me how to UNSUBSCRIBE off the BeeSource chatroom list?

Well that's easy Ruth. Just go away







But don't go yet! I feel there is much unanswered about this topic! When everyone is through slinging mud, perhaps some real discussion can take place. If the DL controversy is a "closed case" does that mean it's not worthy of discussion? I hope not! Your presence here indicates that as strongly as you feel that it is in fact, a closed case, that it still requires discussion. Otherwise, why are you here?

All we want are some facts, a summary of the evidence, an explanation of the experiemental procedures undertaken on this matter so we can understand the situation. You have so far been unwilling to provide any facts, evidence, or summary of procedures to support your argument other than citing some obscure research papers and telling us we're all nuts for not agreeing with you. We may be nuts, but we're intelligent, thinking nuts. Show us your nuts!

I for one still have unanswered questions. Bullseye Bill's answer to my question that bees dance because they're happy and don't sing but hum because they don't know the words leaves me... wondering- about his sanity for one, but also, what is the REAL reason bees dance? Do they learn it? Is it instinctual? If you raise brood in an incubator and shake the bees down onto foundation in an isolated yard without contact with adult bees from other hives, they'll form a perfectly functional colony.. but will they dance? Has any experiment like this been done?


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

Ruth
Being that you started this thread, you may have selected the "Email Notification: emails sent to you whenever someone replies." option.
So that is why you are receiving emails.
(I am not sure but you may be able to go back and edit that post. Try to edit your original post. Look at the very bottom of the page for 3 options. 
Options 
1)Email Notification: emails sent to you whenever someone replies. 
2)Show Signature: include your profile signature. 
3)Disable Graemlins in this post. 

IF 1 IS TURNED ON, TRY TURNING IT OFF. 

)

Probable the best thing would be to notify the moderator and have the thread closed or deleted.

[ January 29, 2006, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: The Honey House ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To George Fergusson,

You are not intelligent nuts, but pests!

For a summary of v. Frisch's honeybee-research(up to 1937), including his first study on honeybee-recruitment, go to: Bee World, vol. 74(2): 90-98 (1993).

For an explanation of the dance go to ABJ vol. 140(2) : 98 (2000).

You have no access to these journals? Ask Barry!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Honeyhouse,

I guess I just registered, but never subscribed. So I do not need to unsubscribe.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

George, you unintelligent pest!

You really and trully tried the best you could. I am sorry that you got the same slam dunk everybody else gets  

Perhaps we can have another discussion on why this discussion didn't go anywhere.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>you may have selected the "Email Notification"

Hey good point Honey House, I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Perhaps we can have another discussion on why this discussion didn't go anywhere.

IT'S A SCIENTIFICALLY CLOSED CASE!

Sigh. I tried. I really did. I guess I are an unintelligent pest, desperately seeking fumigation.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>I guess I are an unintelligent pest,

Indeed. And how dare you to ask someone for their reasoning behind their stated stance? I for one am quite willing to share mine  

>Bullseye Bill's answer to my question that bees dance because they're happy and don't sing but hum because they don't know the words leaves me... wondering- 

Although the statement was made in jest, the more I think about it the more I am convenced that it is a basic truism. After many years of study, out standing in my field, or yard as it may be, I know for an absolute fact, based on my own scientifically closed thinking, that when my bees are humming contently, they are HAPPY!

Ergo, since bees are their happiest when they are busily out collecting the ingredients of life, they must share their happiness somehow. So think, Peanuts. Think, Snoopy. Think, Dance. I feel good, I feel so good I gotta dance! (This is the bee talking now) I gotta tell all my friends what makes me feel so good! I'm gonna turn all my friends onto what is soo good! Follow me to the good stuff, guys!

Can there be any doubt about what makes bees dance?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>And how dare you to ask someone for their reasoning behind their stated stance?

I'm sorry already! I don't know what I was thinking!

>the more I think about it the more I am convenced that it is a basic truism.

You could be on to something. Clearly, a queenless hive hums a depressed and dismal tune. A happy queenright hive hums a very different one.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

At the risk of my better judgement, I'd like to jump back with a comment and a few questions.

First, just to clarify the Nobel Prize issue, von Frisch, Tinbergen and Lorenz shared a Nobel Prize for their development of ethology. Von Frisch did NOT get the prize for his dance-language hypothesis, but rather for his general contributions to ethology. Saying, "Von Frisch received a Nobel Prize for his DL hypothesis," is about like saying, "President Carter received the Nobel Prize for building Habitat for Humanity houses." 

I'll admit that the Nobel Prize adds weight to von Frisch's ideas, whether those ideas might be right or wrong, but the prize wasn't given simply because he suggested a language in honey bees.

Now, am I understanding correctly? Detractors or opponents of the DL hypothesis are claiming bees use no form of communication other than odors? Never, ever, do bees use any form of communication associated with the "dancing" behavior, including visual or audible cues?

Just out of curiosity, couldn't the "dances" of honey bees provide more efficient methods of transferring olfactory cues (i. e. "odors") from scouts to other foragers?

How do scouts communicate to other bees in swarms when swarms are searching for new hive locations? How do the scouts, in essence, say, "I found an ideal hive site over at such-and-such a location?"

And, has the experiment (I think suggested by George; I apologize if I'm giving credit to the wrong person) involving bees raised in incubators so they never have exposure to dances from experienced bees ever been attempted? I'd be curious if those bees also "dance."


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

1. V. Frisch was awarded the Nobel Prize specifically for "The discovery and deciphering of the honeybee DL".Of course, no one is awarded the Nobel Prize for a hypothesis, but the Nobel Committee became erroneously convinced that v. Frisch's DL hypothesis, had been properly experimentally confirmed. My phrasing was inaccurate, but it is very difficult to apply accurate phrasing here. I could, of course, state that he was actually awarded the Prize for his STILLBORN DL hypothesis; which is quite accurate, but certainly not what the Nobel Committee said.

2. DL opponents never claimed that honeybees do not use other means of "communication". For instance, dance-attendants certainly use sound when "begging" food from the dancer. As for the dance, it has been suggested that the wing-vibrations which accompany the waggle-run help spread the odors the forager carries, and, thus, attract potential dance-attendants from a somewhat greater distance; and that the mere sound which accompanies the waggle-run may attract potential dance-attendants. There is, however, no clear evidence for any of that. And round dances without any waggles, i.e., without any wing-vibrations, or sound, seem to be just as effective.

3. Nest-scouts are known to dance in the swarm. However, in spite of all the evidence I provided, you seem unable to get it into your head once and for all, that dance-attendants never use any spatial information contained in dances. You still ask how nest-scouts inform swarm-mates where they found a prospective nest. Swarm-mates recruited by dancing nest-scouts use odor alone all along, just like bees recruited by dancing foragers, to food, and various other resource. Recruits never know where the resource is located, nor what it looks like! 

In nature, prospective nest-sites are never odorless. In fact, they often carry the odors of "wounded" wood, as honeybees usually nest in a cavity in the trunk of a tree caused by a lightning-strike. In fact, I have no doubts that the scouts themselves find prospective nest-sites, by being attracted to the odors of such cavities. If they were to simply inspect just any little hole, they would hardly have a chance of discovering any of the few holes that lead to a cavity that is suitable for a nest, among the myriad of tiny holes that usually exist in their natural environment.

4.V. Frisch himself raised young bees in the absence of older bees that already "know" how to dance. In some cases those young bees eventually began to forage on their own, and performed perfect dances the first time they danced. In fact, it was this finding which led him to conclude that dancing behavior was "instinctive", i.e. genetically predetermined; which is an utterly unwarranted conclusion. You will understand why the conclusion is unwarranted, if you read and understand my highly plausible explanation of the dance.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi,

This might interest at least some of you:

EXPLAINING HONEYBEE DANCES (retyped from my publication in ABJ, 140(4) :98 (2000) 

DOES THE EXISTENCE OF HONEYBEE DANCES REQUIRE THE EXISTENCE OF A HONEYBEE "DANCE LANGUAGE"? 

In a recent letter in ABJ Walls (1999) complains that "dance language" opponents dismiss honey bee dances as "anomalies", or "aberrations". Like many others he raises what is known as the teleological-evolutionary argument: Honey bee dances could not exist unless they were useful to honey bees. They cannot be useful except in a "dance language". Therefore the "dance language" must exist. He pleads for an alternative explanation of honey bee dances, in laymen's terms. I shall try to oblige him as best I can. 

The seemingly very complex dances are a combination of many different, but basically simple component-responses, that all occur also outside the dance, and separately from one another, and most of them occur also in other insects that do not dance, or even in insects that are solitary. Whatever each component response may be useful for obviously has nothing to do with any "dance language". The fact that they all occur in the dance, therefore, cannot preclude the possibility that their combination still has no use in any "dance language". 

Let us briefly consider a simple case where the dancer is a nectar-collector, and the dance takes place in open sunlight on the horizontal landing platform of the hive. We shall soon see that the terms "dancer" and "dance attendants" are misleading. 

I shall, therefore, use them in quotes. The "dance" includes a chase by "dance attendants" after the "dancer" for a reward of food, which is very useful for "dance attendants". It includes an attempt by the "dancer" to escape from those who chase it, which is very useful to the "dancer" when it has very little food left for itself, after having distributed most of the food it had to "house bees". Both of these responses, which are learned, account for the expenditure of time and energy on the part of both "dancer" and "dance attendants". 

The "dance" involves a tendency on the part of the "dancer" to orient itself in such a direction that the effect of sunlight would balance the after-effects of sunlight that resulted from the forager's flight. By the time the forager "dances" the after-effects of sunlight on its eyes, due to the flight to the food, and whatever random direction it maintained towards the sun while it was feeding, normally disappear, The only after-effects of this kind that still persist are due to the return flight home. To balance these after-effects the "dancer" must turn into the direction that is the reverse of the direction from the food to the hive. "If the "dance" points towards the food, this is only because normally the reverse of the direction from the food to the hive happens to coincide with the direction from the hive to the food. (It is possible to create situations that differ from this norm in experiments.) 

As the "dancer turns into the balancing-direction "dance attendants" continue to move ahead due to their inertia, and thus get on the other side of the "dancer". This accounts for "dance attendants" changing sides in relation to the "dancer" during the straight part of the "dance". The turning of the "dancer" into the balancing-direction is followed by "turn-alternation", (This is a response well-known in insects, and various other animals, who after being forced to turn into one direction, follow this with a turn in the opposite direction.) This accounts for the "dancer" turning out of the straight portion of the dance in the opposite direction to the direction in which it turned when it entered the straight portion f the dance. This is followed by the tendency of the "dancer" to turn towards the direction of the side of its body that receives most tactile stimuli. In this case it is "dance attendants" who have changed sides in relation to the "dancer", that provide the tactile stimuli. The "dancer's" response accounts for the round portion of the "dance". This is followed by another turn into the balancing-direction, and so on. 
When the dances take place on the vertical comb inside the hive, they also involve a transformation of direction in relation to light to direction in relation to gravity. This transformation is not only known in other insects, but it was first discovered in a species of beetles, as v. Frisch (1967) pointed out. Moreover, this is a species of solitary insects. It is, therefore, obvious that this transformation has nothing to do with the transmission of any information to anyone. 

I have explained here only the most basic aspects of honey bee dances in the simplest terms I could, and in a way that has nothing to do with any "dance language". But this will do here. The explanation may not be simple at all, in terms of the number of different responses involved. But then, Walls, asked for it. 

Otherwise I could have discredited the teleological-evolutionary argument, in a different, much shorter way.

I could point out that even though v. Frisch himself relied heavily on this argument in his criticism of "dance language" opponents, he had already himself inadvertently discredited this argument. He did so when he concluded (Frisch 1967) that honeybees cannot, and never could obtain the distance information contained in the number of waggles per waggle-run; this even though the production of these waggles requires energy. That much for the teleological-evolutionary argument. 

References

Frisch, K.von. (1967). The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Walls, R. (1999). American Bee J. 139 (11) 820. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional note: At the time I did not have a good explanation for "sickle dances", where alternate waggle-runs point in different directions, with a very large, to very small, angle between these two directions. I found the explanation several years ago. It is yet unpublished. I may eventually "publish" it on the COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY list of TCU (Texas Christian University).


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

According to the literature on the Nobel laureates, von Frisch, Lorenz and Tinbergen shared the prize in 1973, "For their discoveries concerning organization and elicitation of individual and social behaviour patterns." They made and make no mention of giving the prize to two for one reason, and to the third for a different reason. Go back and read the official releases by the Nobel committees if you want to confirm it.

>>However, in spite of all the evidence I provided, you seem unable to get it into your head once and for all, that dance-attendants never use any spatial information contained in dances.

I haven't seen any evidence either way on this thread, to support or refute the concept that bees use spatial information contained in dances. You've stated repeatedly that, [paraphrasing here] "Honey bees never use spatial or distance information in dances for orientation or locating sources of food." To me, that's not evidence, that's just flatly saying that you don't believe the hypothesis. Fine! You don't believe it. Now, WHY don't you believe it? Do you have data to completely refute the dance-language hypothesis?

Honestly, I see the evidence presented by both sides as tenuous. As Ruth points out, other reasons for the "dance" behavior can explain away a lot of the dance-language hypothesis. But, the evidence that opponents of a dance language keep trotting out is pretty weak. The fact that a teleological-evolutionary argument might be flawed alone doesn't refute a dance language in bees. The fact that bees can and do search by odor doesn't refute a dance language. Even in combination, the two don't refute a dance language.

>>In some cases those young bees eventually began to forage on their own, and performed perfect dances the first time they danced. In fact, it was this finding which led him to conclude that dancing behavior was "instinctive", i.e. genetically predetermined; which is an utterly unwarranted conclusion. You will understand why the conclusion is unwarranted, if you read and understand my highly plausible explanation of the dance.

Seems to me like it's still "instinctive," even if you disagree with the reasons for the dance. What about the "wagging" of the abdomen? Does it remain constant as well? Why does the distance component of the dance correspond so well to the foraging trip if the foragers are simply trying to evade house bees eager for food? How do you determine that such behavior is NOT instinctive? It couldn't be learned in this case, I'm assuming, so what else could explain it?

I see a contradiction, too, in the "sun-balancing" component of the "dance" and the shift to replacing the sun in orientation with gravity. If they're using gravity, they can no longer by balancing the physiological after-effects of the sunlight by dancing in opposite "direction" from which they returned. The transformation in other insects is real, but they don't shift between orienting in relation to the sun and orienting in relation to gravity.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I'd like to ask a question for all to ponder:

If "dance" has no value as a communication
tool for bees, then why are bee legs so good
at picking up EXACTLY the frequencies of the
vibrations generated during bee "dances", and
why is honeycomb so good a "dance floor",
transmitting those specific vibrations well
beyond the area around the dancer?

I cite the paper:
_"Transmission of Vibration Across Honeycombs and
its Detection by Bee Leg Receptors"_
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/199/12/2585.pdf
Journal of Experimental Biology 199, 25852594 (1996)

Lindauer should be well-known to anyone who has
read even a few bee-related papers, as he does
lots of good work, and is often cited by others.
His reputation alone should be good enough to
make the paper worth a glance. Sandeman is also
cited fairly often in the literature.

So, regardless of one's fondness for either
evolution or "intelligent design", the issue of
utility appears to beg the question "why would
bee legs and honeycomb just happen to optimize
the ability to detect vibrations in the range of
150Hz to 250Hz, the exact range of frequencies
generated by the various dances?"

This sort of evidence makes it difficult to offer
a coherent critique, which is why dance critics
tend to offer nit-picking of the less well-crafted
work, rather than a cogent explanation of a 
possible alternative mechanism.

You don't need a laser vibrometer to reproduce
these tests at home. One can use a wide range of 
much cheaper "accelerometer" transducers. I don't
know that any except the best labs would have
the gear to do the bee leg work, and it looks
like the sort of work that would require a
watchmaker to attach the hardware to the bee
legs.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I see a contradiction, too, in the "sun-balancing" component of the "dance"

My initial question upon reading the sun-balancing bit was "Do honeybees perform dances on cloudy days?" Sure they do. So unless they're trying to counteract the effects of ultraviolet light (which penetrates clouds) the explanation doesn't make sense. Then, to continue Kieck's line of thought, ultraviolet doesn't penetrate wooden hive bodies any better than ordinary sunlight does.

To be honest, Ruth's explanation of why bees dance doesn't pass the straight-faced test. Is it just me?

>I wish to ask the moderators to ignore any/all personal attacks launched against me by Ruth, and refrain from revoking her posting privileges due to such incivility.

I agree Jim, let Ruth go, I'm interested in what she has to say but please realize... it may not bother you, but for us sensitive feeling types, it's very very disturbing! We like peace... and harmony... It pains me to see you being cut to ribbons by her sharp tongue.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

George, My mother always said...."Just consider the source, and smile". I think that is what Jim is doing, and as he says, it just enhances his reputation.

Whether we believe in the DL or not, I don't know of one person who has changed their mind about it after reading this thread, do you?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> "Do honeybees perform dances on cloudy days?"

William Towne of Kutztown U. in PA has done some
very high-quality work in this area, so high-quality
that he has yet to publish, wanting yet another
season's data to confirm his findings. His work
deals with how bees orient themselves to the
landscape around a hive, and use landmarks to
navigate when clouds prevent them from using
the sun's position as a navigational aid.

Yes, bees DO dance on cloudy days, but the bees
are guessing at the actual sun position, proving
that bees have a sense of time. The interesting
thing is that experiments have been done that
show that bees even know that the Earth is round,
as they will dance at night, and CORRECTLY
correct for a sun position that is "downwards"
rather than "upwards", indicating that they
somehow "know" that the Sun is shining on the
opposite side of the planet.

> for us sensitive feeling types, it's very very 
> disturbing!

Ah, you should do what I did - have your ego
surgically removed. Its just like an appendix,
something that provides no known advantage, and
can only cause you problems.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>His work deals with how bees orient themselves to the landscape around a hive, and use landmarks to navigate when clouds prevent them from using the sun's position as a navigational aid.

Sounds facinating. I've pondered such things in relation to some recent threads about drone congregation areas and also at what appear to be preferential destinations and directions for foragers.

I have to wonder, since bees can see ultraviolet light, what the world looks like to them, especially on a cloudy day. The sun must be "visible" to them, in every sense of the word. That bees know where the sun is when it's cloudy isn't a stretch for me. Knowing they orient their dances to the sun when it's below the horizon (which I've read somwhere) now *that* is a stretch for me. Totally believable, but a stretch. What marvelous creatures. Closed Case









>proving that bees have a sense of time.

Sure, that follows too- lots of animals have internal clocks. Bees also would appear to have a calendar.

>Ah, you should do what I did - have your ego
surgically removed.

Oh, Jim, my mistake! I thought you had it inflated


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I don't know of one person who has changed their mind about it after reading this thread, do you?

Not yet, but then again iddee, Ruth has just started giving us something to chew on


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

I won't say that the information you provide about the 1973 Nobel Prize awarded jointly to Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tibergen & Karl v. Frisch, is a figment of your imagination, because I haven't seen the source you rely on. I shall, however, not even bother to look up that source, because I read the exact statements about that specific Prize, that were made by representative of the Nobel Committee, during the award ceremony!

I certainly stated that honeybee-recruits do not use any spatial information contained in their foragers'-dances (about the approximate location of food, or any other resource). However, your claim that I never provided any evidence for that statement, is a complete figment of your imagination. I will not say that you are lying deliberately, because I realize that you have a far more basic problem. You simply do not understand what evidence is. 

If you formulate a hypothesis, and obtain experimental results that grossly contradict that hypothesis, this means that your hypothesis is wrong, and you should dump it in the waste-basket. And (unless you can provide an acceptable explanation for the portion of your results that contradicts your hypothesis),it does not matter at all if only a portion of your results grossly contradicts the hypothesis.

I made the statement that honeybee-recruits do not use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances, specifically on the basis of experimental evidence. Moreover, I very clearly gave you the evidence that is based on the experimental results v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, as well as the evidence based on the typical manner in which recruits invariably arrive at small, man-made sources of attractive odors in the field (stations). I explained in detail why, in both cases the results grossly contradict the DL hypothesis.(Neither v. Frisch, nor any other DL supporter have ever been able to provide any, even remotely plausible explanation, for the contradictions; even though I did not bother to go into details about this specific point, because the failed pretext DL supporters tried to bring up are too silly to bother with.) Each of those two pieces of evidence separately, therefore, already suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis.

With the kind of an audience I have here, I really do not want to waste any more time discussing the honeybee DL hypothesis in this forum. Enough is enough!


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>To Kieck,

>Honeybee-recruits do not use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances. Period!

>All your comments on this issue are irrelevant.

Did you forget?  

CASE CLOSED!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I really do not want to waste any more time 
> discussing the honeybee DL hypothesis in this 
> forum.

OK, fine... then explain:</font>
How an "odor" can be detected by bees
when the source is 1 mile away from the hive.</font>
How an odor can indicate a specific point
source in the case of a feeder dish</font>
How odor can be of any value at all when
high winds are present.</font>
Explain YOUR pet theory, and please REFRAIN from
offering what you perceive as "defects" in work
done on "dance" as pseudo-support for your
contention.

In short, make your case, in a calm and reasonable
manner, and explain the *mechanism* by which
it works.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Jim,

I know I should never waste any time responding to your utterly illogical comments. Nonetheless, let me try just one more time: The way it works is the way it works for flying insects in general. Flying insects in general use odor alone all along to find sources of attractive odors in the field; and this applies also to solitary insects, that have no one to provide them with any information about the location of any such source. Whatever answers scientists have already worked out about the details of how flying insects in general do it, is what scientists know about the details of the mechanism so far.

You are incapable of even stopping for a moment to consider that since flying insects in general regularly do it, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, why honeybee-recruits should not be able to do it too. 

I do not want to ever again deal with comments by someone [edit by admin]. And I won't do it again!

[ February 07, 2006, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"utterly illogical comments"

I trust when you say that you have one eyebrow raised much higher than the other . . . 

Live long and Prosper Ruth

Keith


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I don't dispute that insects in general and bees in particular use odor to locate sources of food. I don't think anyone else here disputes that statement. I don't think they use odor exclusively to locate food either. Bees have good vision and apparently use it in addition to odor to find food sources.

Honey bee dances would appear to be a very elaborate and needlessly complicated method of communicating the existance of a food source and recruiting other foragers if all they were doing is saying "smell me". Why orient the dance in such a way as to communicate the the angle defined by the sun, the hive, and the food source? Why modify the orientation of the dance as time passes to account for the apparent motion of the sun? Why impart data to the dance that correlates to the distance from the hive to the food source?

So. We observe bees that have located a tasty source of food returning to the hive and recruiting other foragers by communicating to them the polar coordinates of the food source. "Fly this direction. Go this far. You can't miss it."

Is it plausible to assume that a human observer could witness a honey bee dancing, correctly interpret the information imparted by the dance motions, and strike off from the hive in the proper direction and go the proper distance and find the food source? THAT would be a fun experiment!

Ruth, you have yet to convince me that location information is not included in honey bee dances and that odor is the only means of recruitment. Explain honey bee dances! I don't see how you can promote one theory without fully addressing the opposing theory. Honey bee dances need a plausible and rational explanation, if they're not for recruiting foragers by communicating location information, what are they for? The only explanation you've provided so far I find hard to swallow.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> You are incapable of even stopping for a moment 
> to consider that since flying insects in general 
> regularly do it, there is absolutely no reason 
> whatsoever, why honeybee-recruits should not be 
> able to do it too.

Odors have a limited "range", as you and everyone
else are aware. Bees forage at distances
beyond the known range of the ability of
detectable odors to travel. Even queen pheromone
is only attractive to drones within a limited
distance, so while odor alone might explain
foraging at sources close to the hive, we still
await an explanation of foraging by multiple
recruits in increasing numbers over time at
nectar and pollen sources at greater distances.

Answer each question asked, be specific, and
stop dodging the specific questions. Also,
drop the insulting tone, as it makes your
weaving and dodging look even more pitiful.

Stand and deliver, and be civil.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
All I ask is that a mechanism be defined that
applies to bees.

We all continue to await a coherent explanation,
rather than insults and misdirection.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I won't say that the information you provide about the 1973 Nobel Prize awarded jointly to Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tibergen & Karl v. Frisch, is a figment of your imagination, because I haven't seen the source you rely on. I shall, however, not even bother to look up that source, because I read the exact statements about that specific Prize, that were made by representative of the Nobel Committee, during the award ceremony!

Actually, I used the official Nobel prize website, which provided the quotation I cited. I don't doubt that other comments were made during the award ceremony, but they aren't necessarily the "only" reason the award was given to von Frisch.

>>I certainly stated that honeybee-recruits do not use any spatial information contained in their foragers'-dances (about the approximate location of food, or any other resource). However, your claim that I never provided any evidence for that statement, is a complete figment of your imagination. I will not say that you are lying deliberately, because I realize that you have a far more basic problem. You simply do not understand what evidence is. 

I read and reread your statements. I still see them as statements, not scientific evidence. Others on the thread are stating, "[Again, paraphrasing here] Bees use a dance language." To me, that's not evidence either. Perhaps, though, I should rephrase it: I'd like to see the data that refutes the hypothesis.

>>Is it plausible to assume that a human observer could witness a honey bee dancing, correctly interpret the information imparted by the dance motions, and strike off from the hive in the proper direction and go the proper distance and find the food source? THAT would be a fun experiment!

It IS a fun experiment, George, and very much worth trying to satisfy your own curiosity! I have done this experiment several times; the first time was in an animal behavior lab at the University of Kansas, and I've repeated it several times on my own for my own satisfaction. I works well for me, suggesting that direction and distance information is contained in the "dances," even if opponents deny that attendant bees use this information.

Like others, I'd very much like to see the data that refutes the dance language so emphatically. Simply giving other explanations for the behavior doesn't do any more than dance-language hypothesis. From the opponents of a dance language, I'd like to see data that clearly rejects the use of such a language by bees.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>It IS a fun experiment, George, and very much worth trying to satisfy your own curiosity!

Well it's on my list, but it'll have to wait till I get an observation hive going. Chasing down some drone congregation areas around here is my first task, best not let myself get spread too thin









Back to the dance language controversy. Didn't I read somewhere about some clever researcher that built a mechanical "dancing bee"? Am I nuts or did I really see this?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Am I nuts or did I really see this?

Are these mutually exclusive?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Are these mutually exclusive?

Apparently not as the answer to both questions is "yes"









It's on page 294 of my 6th edition of "The Hive and the Honeybee" complete with a diagram the contraption that would have made Rube Goldberg proud:


> In attempts to prove that honey bees use dance information, several scientists have constructed mechanical dancing bees that mimicked real bees in terms of sounds, movements, and odors. The object was to determine the extent to which naive bees could be directed to known food locations. After initial failures, Michelsen & Anderson (1989) claimed success.


It goes on to say that the "controversy" is too complex and lengthy to be discussed in more detail, but then goes on to discuss it in more detail. There's actually more about the dance language "controversy" in this book than I'd remembered. Guess I'll take it to bed with me and bone up on the subject.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

I definitely provided on this forum the data v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment. The data led him to conclude that honeybee-recruits use odor alone and NO information about the location of any food. I explained why his conclusion was fully justified. I also explained why they refuted his later DL hypothesis. I will not do it all over again. 

I also explained that recruits invariably arrive at small man-made sources of attractive odors in the field through an upwind zigzag (which means that they are already responding to attractive odors), from as far as the bees can only be spotted by observers at the sources with the naked eye, i.e. from at least 10 m. away. I explained that had recruits used the spatial information contained in the dances, they should have often arrived much closer to such sources (and especially the forager'-feeder, much closer than a distance of 10 m. away, by use of the spatial information alone, i.e. without an upwind zigzag, and then found the odor-plume from the source while within sight of observers. They are often expected to arrive by use of the spatial information alone, at points that are within the odor-plume from a source, and much closer to the source than a distance of 10 m. away, and then start the upwind zigzag from such points that are much closer to a source than 10 m. away. This has never happened (in observations on the arrivals of thousands of new-arrivals at such sources. This is why these observations grossly contradict the expectations from the DL hypothesis. 

If you were unable to understand those two different pieces of evidence, I cannot help you!

V. Frisch used DL information from foragers'-dances to find the man-made foragers' food-source his assistants hid in the grass, long before you did it. Except that he needed to average the information from several different dances to find the source. Besides, does not even remotely support any claim that honeybees can do the same thing. Honeybees are not humans, and there are a million different things that humans can do, using human "brains", that honeybees cannot do. If you do not understand that, I can not help you, here, either.

I shall not respond to any further claims from you that I did not provide the evidence that suffices to completely discard the DL hypothesis. I've simply had it!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To George Fergusson and all the others who brought up the dancing "robot" bee:

Such a "robot" was indeed built, and those that experimented with it claimed their results experimentally confirmed that recruits used the spatial information provided by the "robot".The claim, like all earlier, or later such claims, is totally unwarranted, for a whole variety of reasons. The claim is just another case where staunch DL supporters managed to delude themselves, and then many others, into believing they had achieved the impossible. 

I dealt with that claim in one of the long messages I posted on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list. I explain to you how to subscribe to that list, and then obtain my posts. Here, I shall, however, note here the following:

1. The claims by the robot team, like most (though not quite all) other such claims, are based on the authors' interpretations of their data obtained in the form of distributions of new-arrivals among the various man-made small sources of attractive odors provided in the field (stations). The interpretations of such data by DL supporters are invariably not only non-valid, but doubly non-valid, because they all, without exception, rely on erroneous expectations from the DL hypothesis, as well as the "odor alone all along" hypothesis. Both types of expectations were introduced by v. Frisch, and both are in error. I will not, however, explain here why this is the case. (I did explain it in my long posts on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list.)The only exception is Gould, who still relied on v. Frisch's erroneous expectations from the DL hypothesis (which suffices to completely invalidate his interpretations). As far as the expectations from use of odor alone all along, he relied, however, on his own expectations, where recruits presumably use the specific natural locale-odors the foragers bring in from the locale of the foragers'-station, to identify that locale on a map of the "olfactory landscape" of the whole foraging area of the colony. I.e., Gould believes that when recruits use odor alone all along, they still use information about the approximate site of the foragers' feeder, but they do not obtain that information from dances. The belief makes his interpretations totally irrelevant to the whole DL controversy, which is over whether recruits do, or do not, use odor alone all along, WITHOUT any information about the location of any food (as flying insects in general do to find sources of attractive odors in the field; and this includes also solitary insects, that have no one to provide them with information about the location of any food, through dances, or through natural locale-odors carried from the locale of the foragers'-feeder).

2.The authors did not actually capture new-arrivals. Instead they relied on a criterion introduced by v. Frisch at some stage, to count as new-arrivals all bees that approached to within 20 cm. of a station through an upwind zigzag from outside the field of vision of observers at the station for spotting honeybees in flight. In other words, they were continually observing the typical manner of arrival, which alone suffices to completely discredit the whole DL hypothesis. But, they were so intent on obtaining the data on where recruits arrived, that they did not "see" that which was right before their eyes.

3.The first study on honeybee-recruitment done with the "robot" bee was carried out by Michelsen et al. and published in Naturwissenchaften, in 1989. 

The results of all the distance-tests grossly contradicted the expectations of DL supporters themselves from the DL hypothesis. The maximum of new-arrivals never occurred at the DL stations. The authors claimed, nonetheless, that new-arrivals in those tests did use the DL information provided by the "robot", but some tall trees that were at least half a kilometer further from the hive than any of the stations, and not even anywhere near the expected flight-routes of recruit, distorted the results. This, if you will excuse the expression, is plain B.S!

Moreover, if anyone could even begin to seriously consider such a preposterous pretext, he would have to discard practically all tests done on honeybee-recruitment, because usually there were some tall trees, near, or far from the experimental area.

In the direction the maximum of new-arrivals invariably occurred at the DL station indicated by the "robot". In all those tests there was the DL station, and an "opposite" station, with the wind blowing perpendicularly to the directions of those 2 stations. Most of the direction-tests, however, included a strong bias in favor of the DL station, in the form of 2 additional stations, one on each side of the DL stations, at 45 degrees to that DL station. Even if you do not know that this introduces a strong bias in favor of the DL station (which the authors should have known because Wenner had repeatedly stressed the expected effect of the geometric arrangement of stations on use of odor alone all along), you do not do something like that! The authors present the results of only 2 tests without that strong bias, but a maximum at the DL station can then be expected by accident in 25% of the cases (especially since a wind that blows in one perfectly constant direction does not exist in nature, and any slight change in wind direction would have given an advantage to the one of the only 2 stations, that was closer to the upwind direction. here is a 50% (1/2) chance that you would obtain such results by accident if you carry out only one test, and 25% (1/2 x 1/2 + 1/4)), if you carry only 2 tests. In science, the occurrence of any results is considered insignificant, i.e. not convincing for any claim, unless the result are expected in less than 5% of the cases. 

Another study with the "robot" team was then carried out by Kirchner & Towne, and published in Scientific American, in 1994. The authors did not try any distance tests. Why tempt the devil? They present the results of only 2 tests , with 8 stations equally spaced in a circle all around the hive. The results fit the totally erroneous expectations of DL supporters from the DL hypothesis (which provides no support for the DL hypothesis, because, as I pointed out earlier, the expectations are in error). Moreover, with this arrangement of stations, the most important factor expected to affect results due to use of odor alone all along, is wind-direction; which the authors do not even bother to provide!

Wenner labeled the science done by DL supporters, in print, as "sick science". The science DL supporters did with on honeybee-recruitment, using the "robot" bee is an example of "very sick science!" 

This is not surprising at all, in view of the history of the researchers involved in these studies. The first study included Martin Lindauer, v. Frisch's best known former student, and collaborator. The second study involved Kirchner, who was a member of the team that carried out the first study, and Towne, a former student of James Gould, who was himself a former student of Donald Griffin, the first scientist to give v. Frisch's sensational DL hypothesis maximal publicity in the US, starting in 1949. The science DL supporters do is not just "sick science", but science that is not only "sick" but science that carries "an infectious disease".


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> the data v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment.
> The data led him to conclude that honeybee-recruits use odor alone and NO
> information about the location of any food.


And later work he did caused him to change his conclusions massively.
</font>
Why do you think that this happened?</font>
Could it be that his initial work caused 
him to develop better methods, or worse ones?</font>
Did his experience enhance his understanding, 
or degrade it?</font>



> I also explained why they refuted his later DL hypothesis.


So, his initial work "refuted" his later work? Interesting, as
Von Frisch clearly did not think so himself, or he would have only
published his initial work, and perhaps published more work supporting
that early work. It seems that you are getting things backwards here,
in that the only possible conclusion one can draw is that his intent was
to *refute his early work with his later work*.

> I also explained that recruits invariably arrive at small man-made sources of 
> attractive odors in the field through an upwind zigzag 

The statement above is complete and utter baloney, easy to disprove
by anyone with both bees and eyes. I've set up more "feeding stations" 
in my bee-lining work than most people, and watched the approach of bees
with binoculars for hundreds of hours, and many of those feeding stations
were *DOWNWIND* of the hive. If what you claim were true, the bees
would pass the feeding station, detect an "odor plume", and then reverse
direction, flying upwind to the feeding station. I've *NEVER* seen
this happen. You'd have to provide video tape to convince me that it
might *EVER* happen.



> observers at the sources with the naked eye, i.e. from at least 10 m. away.


Paying attention to only the final few meters of bee flight is one of
the many methodology errors that can mislead one. Sure, I am more than
willing to trust that bees can and will use all their senses, including
sense of smell, to make their final approach, and if they _just happen_
to be flying upwind, *of course* they will tend to "tack" like a sailor
does, resulting in a zig-zag flight pattern. What did you expect? What
creature that flies is going to try to fight a headwind "head on"?



> had recruits used the spatial information contained in the dances, they
> should have often arrived... much closer than a distance of 10 m. away,
> by use of the spatial information alone...


Again, you are mistaken in very basic concepts here. It has been shown
that dance information is inherently "sloppy" and inexact. You yourself
have made much hay about that as a critique of "dance". The "sloppy"
nature of the information is an actual advantage to the bees, as it tends
to spread foragers out a bit in the usual "patch" of flowering plants or
trees, as _plants and trees tend to *not* be point sources_ while
feeders certainly are point sources. So, if one has a feeder in a clearing
otherwise devoid of nectar sources, it is not at all surprising that bees
use the spatial information, and then must use their senses to find the
point source, as the spatial information tends to *disperse* foragers
to minimize the wasted effort of having multiple foragers visit the same
exact blossoms over and over.



> Honeybees are not humans, and there are a million different things that humans
> can do, using human "brains", that honeybees cannot do.


This "anthropomorphic" argument is just plain silly. Toss a ball to a child,
and the child will catch it. Toss a Frisbee to a dog, and the dog will jump
into the air on an intercept course and catch it in mid-air. Neither the
child nor the dog have any idea how much math or "thought" is required to
do such a thing, but somehow they can do it. I realize you have not even
laid eyes on a beehive since childhood, but you certainly have seen people 
playing catch with their kids and dogs, haven't you? Connect the dots.



> The claim {robo-bee study results}, like all earlier, or later such claims, is
> totally unwarranted, for a whole variety of reasons.


Please provide the specific reasons. I read the papers, and saw a well designed
methodology, and data that showed statistically significant numbers of bees
being FOOLED by the "robo-bee" into flying to stations where no feed at all was
provided. When you can "fool" a bee into doing something completely non-productive,
you have clearly eliminated any chance that the bee was ignoring the 
*mis*information provided.



> ...where recruits presumably use the specific natural locale-odors the foragers bring
> in from the locale of the foragers'-station, to identify that locale on a map of the
> "olfactory landscape" of the whole foraging area of the colony.


If this were to be true, this would mean that specific areas of my 500 acres of land 
would somehow have unique odors, odors that would somehow be detectable "over" or
"in addition to" the pollen and nectar odors brought back on the bee. Since odors
of pollen an nectar are detectable, why aren't "locality odors"?

To offer a different case, one would think that something as simple as spreading
manure on my fields would cause confusion for the bees. I assure you that spreading
tons of manure on several hundred acres results in a significant change in the odor 
of the entire locality.







Why is foraging unhampered by such sudden changes,
changes that *must* impact your presumed "locality odor"?



> I shall not respond to any further claims from you that I did not provide the
> evidence that suffices to completely discard the DL hypothesis.


If you call your most recent two postings "evidence", you are sadly mistaken.
You have offered incomplete and misleading statements, and *still* have
not offered a single direct answer to any of the direct questions posed by
myself and others.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> V. Frisch used DL information from foragers'-dances to find the man-made foragers' food-source his assistants hid in the grass, long before you did it. Except that he needed to average the information from several different dances to find the source. Besides, does not even remotely support any claim that honeybees can do the same thing.


So, you're saying that a honey bee is smart enough to dynamically create a unique dance using the variable elements of their dance language to express the polar coordinates of a remote food source it has located, but observer bees aren't smart enough to interpret, understand, and act upon what's being communicated?

I am speechless.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"I shall never again respond to your endless"

Please Ruth, we can see from your history on this forum that this is simply not true. 

I have a question, and it follows Georges post. You seem to admit that this spatial information can be deciphered from the behaviors that we have all come to refer to as the "DL". It obviously takes energy to engage in these behaviors, and variant of the behavior we call dancing is seen in other Apis spp., so why would this behaviour(s),an energy expenditure, not have been extinguished over time as useless if the bees are not using the information? Non-human creatures rarely engage in fruitless behaviors as a species (individuals are another matter). 

Keith

[ February 02, 2006, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

My explanation of the dance answers your question. But I can't help it if you still don't understand!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Perhaps I simply found it . . . wanting.

Keith "not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you" Benson

[ February 02, 2006, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Benson, again:

My explanation of the dance, which I deliberately posted on this forum, is entitled:

"Does the existence of honey bee dances requires the existence of a honey bee "dance language?"

The answer is "No!", and the publication explains why this is so.

Nonetheless, you still insist that the answer must be :"Yes!"

I don't know how you managed to arrive at such a conclusion, and I don't want to know. Perhaps it is just "wishful thinking" on your part. However, "good, straight logical thinking", it is not! 

Sorry, But I have long lost the patience to answer over and over again questions I had already answered before. I am utterly unable to hold debates with those who can't think straight.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Ruth,

Two points:

A: Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are unable to think strait. I would hat to think you are so arrogant that you cannot see that.

B: "I am utterly unable to hold debates with those who can't think straight" You keep saying that, and yet, you continue to engage nearly everyone who is posting on this thread. The notion that you will nto continue to discuss this topic with anyone is as ridiculous as the notion that you will every really leave this forum. A better way to have phrased that is "I am utterly unable to hold debates"

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>The data led him to conclude that honeybee-recruits use odor alone and NO information about the location of any food. I explained why his conclusion was fully justified. I also explained why they refuted his later DL hypothesis.

I realize you said you wouldn't explain it again, but your statements bring up even more questions in my mind. First, the way I interpret von Frisch's early work is supportive of searching by odor, but not excluding any other language. Why are the two mutually exclusive?

Then, why (like Jim asked earlier) would von Frisch even formulate a DL hypothesis if he had already "refuted" it? Are you suggesting he was deliberately trying to dupe others, particularly those in the scientific community? Why wouldn't the people who reviewed his manuscripts before publication have caught the apparent contradiction? And, if his data didn't fail to reject the DL hypothesis, why would the reviewers have let such statements pass their scrutiny?

You've mentioned that other insects orient by olfaction, which is absolutely true, but not at the exclusion of all other methods. Take, for instance, some of the moths. Some species of moths are able to detect chemical traces in air at far lower levels than any other animals that have been tested. These moths -- the males in particular -- can locate females by pheromones over great distances. Yet the moths don't navigate by odor alone -- just look at moths around lights to see examples of orientation by light, not odor.

Ants recruit nestmates through chemicals and through sound. Ants and bees aren't all that distantly related. Should we throw out all the work done on recruitment by ants that doesn't rely solely on olfaction?

Then, too, if you're a scientist, don't you have more respect for the opinions of other scientists than to imply that scientists follow on blind faith after others, even if those "others" are distinguished members of their fields? You've mentioned the theory of the spherical earth as a "closed case" and related it to the rejection of a dance language in bees; if a scientist came up with strong evidence rejecting the spherical shape of the earth, would you just reject it because, "the case is closed?"

Really, the first issue in this "controversy," I think, is defining this "DL hypothesis." You've mentioned several times that no one even knows anymore exactly what the "DL hypothesis" really claims, only a much more simple, elegant explanation for a dance language. What, exactly, is the hypothesis you're disclaiming so strongly? Word for word, please spell it out for the rest of us.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

I shall try to answer your questions, though not in the order in which you presented them

1. You demand that I provide you with an exact definition of the DL hypothesis, after I said that no such exact definition exists at all. Obviously I cannot give you something that does not exist. For instance, after the inception of his DL hypothesis, v. Frisch took it for granted that foragers dance in order to provide DL information to dance-attendants, and hive-mates attend dances in order to obtain and use that information. He, therefore, took it for granted that all dance-attendants use the spatial information in foragers'-dances. And this included even trained foragers that cease to forage at their familiar site after the food there is depleted, or removed. He knew that if they leave the hive, as most of them do, such re-recruited trained foragers resume flights to their familiar site, if they attend a dancer carrying their familiar food-odor from their familiar site, or from ANOTHER site, as well as after coming in contact with a successful forager that carries their familiar food odor, but does not dance at all. He knew that they could not have been using DL information for navigation when they resumed flight to their familiar site, after following a dance that indicated a totally different site. But he claimed that they use DL information to determine whether nectar flow had actually resumed at their familiar-site, or only probably resumed there.

Gould, later claimed that recruits use DL information only under v. Frisch's conditions, but not under Wenner's conditions. Wenner used the same scented sugar concentration for training the foragers, and ,then, for actual tests. V. Frisch claimed to have trained the foragers on a scented sugar solution of low concentration, with, or without any artificial scent, and switched to a solution of high concentration with a different scent, for actual tests. It turned out, however, that he actually used a sugar-solution of high concentration at the beginning of training, as well as whenever, during the step-training, he first moved the foragers'-feeder further from the hive, and also when he trained foragers to a feeder that was very far from the hive. What he basically did was to make sure that his trained foragers were feeding on a scented sugar solution of low concentration during the last half hour prior to actual tests. The difference between v. Frisch's conditions and Wenner's conditions was, thus, basically very small. Soviet scientists claimed to have experimentally confirmed that recruits used DL information in their own tests, where they trained the foragers on a sugar-solution of intermediate concentration, without switching scents. Bogdany & Taber(1979),who trained foragers to fly across a very wide and deep canyon, claimed that recruits used DL information in their tests, even though they actually used Wenner's conditions. The radar-tracking team (in Nature 2005) claimed that recruits used DL information in their tests. They assume that Gould's conclusions were correct, but did not, and could not have carried their own tests under v. Frisch's conditions, which involve, among others, switching scents, because they insisted on using only unscented food.

V. Frisch claimed that recruits do not use, and dancing foragers, do not provide, any height information. Wellington & Cmiralova (1979) claimed that recruits used not only distance & direction information, but also height information, in their own test; which meant that the foragers must somehow also provide height information, although no one knows how they might be doing it.

V. Frisch claimed (on the basis of various tests), that distance-information in dances is determined by the amount of energy spent on the flight to the food & back, with the amount spent on returning to the hive given a smaller weight. Any weight given to the amount of energy spent on returning to the hive, can only mislead recruits who need to fly unloaded, in the opposite direction. So Lindauer, v. Frisch's best known student & collaborator, "solved" the problem, by claiming in print, without any evidence whatsoever, that under natural conditions distance-indication in dances is of course determined only by the amount of energy spent on flying from the hive to the food. Srinivasan & his team (2000) claim (on the basis of their own tests, done with foragers trained to fly through a long and very narrow tunnel (which honeybees never do in nature),that distance information in dances is not determined by the amount of energy spent in flight, but by the total angular-deviation of background images the foragers see along their way. Khalifman (1950), claimed that distance-information in dances is determined only by the flight from the food back to the hive (and basic physiological considerations lead to the conclusion that this should be the case under the most common experimental conditions; which means that the information would only mislead recruits even if they could obtain, and use, the information.

There are problems with direction-information in dances, when the foragers are moved and released at another site than their familiar site. But, I shall not continue, because you should by now begin to get the picture.
---------------

2. You bring up various pieces of evidence regarding flying insects in general, and then draw from that evidence totally unwarranted conclusion that is not even remotely supported by the evidence. Flying insects in general regularly find sources of attractive odors in the field by use of odor alone all along. No one would be silly enough to suggest that honeybees, or other flying insects do not have, or use other senses, like vision, odors, tastes, hearing, a tactile sense. Flying insects, however, obviously, do not use any of those other senses when they use odor alone all along to find sources of attractive odors in the field. And all the bits and pieces of information you mentioned about them, does not provide even an iota of evidence that they need information about the location of such sources, and cannot find such sources by use of odor alone all along. I stressed before, that solitary flying insects must be able to find sources of attractive odors in the field by use of odor alone all along, because they have no one to provide them with any information about the location of any such source. And when flying insects evolved into social flying insects, they did not lose such a basic ability. For instance, nest-scouts are cavity with odors that those scouts had learned to associate with a nest.

Now, forget about v. Frisch's claim about re-recruited trained foragers using DL information for another purpose than navigation. (The results of all the tests he conducted on such bees are easily explained by the effects of odor alone.)So we are left with the DL controversy over whether regular honeybee-recruits, that can not obtain any information about the visual properties of the resource their dancing foragers visit, do, or do not use spatial information contained in the dances, about the approximate site of any such resource?

They certainly do not need to use such spatial information, because, being flying insects, they can use odor alone all along, like flying insects in general. The question is, however, do they use the spatial information, even if they don't need it? I'm pleased to inform you that when one compares efficiency, in terms of the number of dances performed per new-arrival, it turns out that recruits are even far more efficient under Wenner's conditions, where Gould claimed that most of them use odor alone all along, than under v. Frisch's conditions, where Gould claimed that most recruits use DL information. (See my first critique of Gould's claims, (published in J. theoret. Biol. in 1978).

If Gould's conclusions are correct than, a DL that is far less efficient than use of odor alone all alone, could never evolve in the first place.
--------
3. In v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment, round dances, without a trace of a waggle, resulted in recruits finding sources with the foragers' food-odor, among others, 150 m., 300 m. and 100 m. from the hive. (each of those results occurred in a different test.) In the Austrian honeybee-strain he used in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, and most of his other studies, when the food is 100 m. from the hive, the foragers perform only waggle-dances. Round dances are performed only for food that is less than 100 m. from the hive. According to v. Frisch's later DL hypothesis, when recruits of that strain attend round dances, this provides them with the information that the food is not more than 100 m. from the hive. And this leads them to search only the area within a 100 m. radius around the hive, and, consequently find food-sources that are available only within that area. This is why, the results he obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment already grossly contradicted his DL hypothesis. And if you ask me that question yet again, I am going to scream!
--------
4. As for the history of the DL hypothesis, v. Frisch never tried to delude others. He deluded himself, and then, very easily deluded others, by the type of tests he was carrying out after he came to believe that honeybees had a DL. The results he was then able to demonstrate showed distributions of new-arrivals with a maximum at the DL-station, and fewer new-arrivals at other stations, the further those stations were from the DL-station. This seemed to intuitively fit the expectations from the DL hypothesis. At the same time, he assumed that use of odor alone all along should result in distributions with a greater number of new-arrivals at stations, the closer the stations were to the hive (not to the DL stations). This also seemed intuitively correct, especially since v. Frisch had already "discovered" before he even began to test honeybee-recruitment, that honeybees have a very poor, human-like sensitivity to odors. Until I began to dig ever deeper into the DL hypothesis, it never even occurred to any one that those beguiling expectations from use of odor alone all along, and from the DL hypothesis, where both in error, let alone how and why that error occurred in the first place. 

Very briefly, in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, where the foragers'-feeder was very close to the hive, and also the closest site to the hive, and where, in the distance-tests, there were only 1-2 other sites, the closer a station (with the foragers' food-odor)was to the hive the earlier it was found by recruit, and the greater the number of new-arrivals it received. To explain such results by use of odor alone all along, after he had already erroneously concluded that honeybees had a very poor sensitivity to odors, he had no choice but to assume that the way recruits search for attractive odors was that they conducted a circular search that gradually expanded around the hive. This led to basically the same type of expectations in all future tests, i.e. that the closer a station with the foragers' food-odor was to the hive, the earlier it should be found by recruits, and the greater the number of new-arrivals it should receive. It was these expectations that were grossly refuted 20 years later, in an inadvertent test with a very different arrangement of stations, which left him no choice but to conclude that his initial conclusion that recruits use odor alone all along, must have been an error. The results of that inadvertent test also created the beguiling, but erroneous impression that recruits knew where to go. And this gradually led to the discovery of the distance & direction information in honeybee dances, which provided him with an explanation how it was that recruits knew where to go. 

The failure of his expectations from use of odor alone all along was, however, only due to the fact that the expectations were in error, and the reason they were in error is that they were based on v. Frisch's even earlier, erroneous conclusion about the very poor sensitivity of honeybees to odors. 

Whichever way honeybee-recruits search for attractive odors, they do not do it through any expanding circular-search. However, as far as v. Frisch was concerned, the expectations from use of odor alone remained for him as they originally were, based on a circular search that gradually expands around the hive, to the limits of the foraging area. The expectations from the DL hypothesis, became dependent on the use of the DL information, supplemented, when necessary by a search for attractive odors within a relatively short range. But the search remained the same type of circular search that expanded around a central point, where that central point was the hive for round dances, and the point reached by use of the distance & direction information alone, for waggle dances. Actually, all recruits that attend round dances, and most recruits that attend waggle-dances, must conduct this search for attractive odors. Flying insects do not search for attractive odors through any expanding circular search; which is why v. Frisch's expectations from both the DL hypothesis, and the "odor alone all along", are both in error, and any interpretation of distributions of new-arrivals that are based on these expectations, are doubly non-valid.

Apart from this basic error (which remained undetected for years), the scientific community became very excited about v. Frisch's presumed discovery of the honeybee DL, and about the results the results v. Frisch was able to demonstrate after the inception of his DL hypothesis, that no one paid attention to his first study on honeybee-recruitment done at least 20 years earlier; and most scientists might not even have known of the existence of that study. 

When Ribbands discovered, and published in 1963, that contrary to v. Frisch, honeybees are exceptionally highly sensitive to odors, v. Frisch countered with 3 new studies on the sensitivity of honeybees to odors, all basically supporting v. Frisch vs. Ribbands. Each of the 3 studies, done by a single researcher, who used a different technique. All three were, interestingly, associated with v. Frisch in one way, or another. And all 3, as we know today, were dead wrong.

Ribbands could not, however, have figured out that it was v. Frisch's error about the sensitivity of honeybees to odors, that led v. Frisch to eventually conclude that his initial conclusion that recruits use odor alone all along, and no information about the location of any food, must have been an error (which it never was), because by then the Evolutionary-Teleological argument in favor of the DL hypothesis began to play a major role in the conviction of scientists that honeybees simply had to have a DL, in order to explain what the dances are good for. I explain much more about it in my very long 6 posts on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list. There is no point in trying to re-post them here. And there is no point in even urging you to obtain them from the Archives of that list, and read them very carefully, because this is not easy stuff, and I realize that your training in thinking very accurately and rigorously is, unfortunately, very limited, to put it mildly. So this is as far as I shall go in my explanation, except to note that the DL controversy would have been a very simple controversy, if it had not become, inevitably embroiled in far more complex that concern the very foundation of the whole field of behavioral science.

I will not answer any more questions, because you are obliging me to deal with issues that I know, are way above the heads of most of you; which means that I am only wasting both my time and yours.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>I am only wasting both my time and yours.

wow. Was that cut and paste, or did you actully type that all out?  If so, then I have to finally agree with you %100.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

[edit by admin]

You can dodge, you can weave, you can duck,
but your refusal to answer direct questions
posed in simple language tends to reduce your
credibility, and the credibility of your
extraordinary claims.

Also, being dismissive towards people who
are undecided, or disagree with you is no
way to "win friends and influence people".

I only point these things out because I
feel that you could do a much better job
of presenting your case. Its not your
point of view I respect, it is your right
to HAVE a point of view. 

If only you would show the same respect
for others that is constantly shown you...

[ February 07, 2006, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

I can prove that Jim [edit by admin]. He advised me about two years ago of the kind of tests carried out by the radar-team that published its research in Nature of May, 12, 2005. Said that, as a radar-expert he had seen a preview of the report which was sent to him for consultation prior to publication. I checked with a colleague of the team who knew of the study, and was informed that as far as he knew no such tests were ever done, which not surprisingly, turned out to be correct when the study was published.

[edit by admin] 

Jim insisted in this forum, that I never provided any evidence against the DL hypothesis. Now that I have shown I definitely did provide such evidence, he claims that the all evidence against the DL hypothesis must simply be ignored!

Kieck is simply a very naive person [edit by admin].

I don't have to deal with any of that!

[ February 10, 2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I can prove that Jim [edit by admin].

All you "prove" is that you are mistaken.
I'm sorry to see you go.

[ February 10, 2006, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

> I can prove that Jim [edit by admin].

Are we gonna start this all over again? I don't care how experienced or knowledgeable you or anyone on this board is, if you can't have a discussion or argument without being civil then leave the board. 

Exchange of ideas here is a great way to learn and a great way to challenge ideas etc. People have different opinions.

It should NOT be about personal attacks. I hope you take your personal attacks elsewhere!

GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

[ February 10, 2006, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<I can prove that Jim [edit by admin]. He advised me about two years ago of the kind of tests carried out by the radar-team that published its research in Nature of May, 12, 2005. Said that, as a radar-expert he had seen a preview of the report which was sent to him for consultation prior to publication. I checked with a colleague of the team who knew of the study, and was informed that as far as he knew no such tests were ever done, which not surprisingly, turned out to be correct when the study was published.>>

Jim -

Can you please reply to this statement by Ruth? She is making a significant claim and I would like to know if it is true or not. Thanks.

- Barry

[ February 10, 2006, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I shall try to answer your questions, though not in the order in which you presented them

Thank you. That was very informative.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Can you please reply to this statement by Ruth? 

I did, scroll up.

[edit by admin]

> She is making a significant claim and I would 
> like to know if it is true or not.

You take that sort of [edit by admin] SERIOUSLY?
If you have to ask, then you clearly have not
read the dismissive way with which she treats
anyone who wishes to think critically, and ask
a few questions.

About the most charitable thing I can say is
that she is mistaken, and that Ruth's accusation
is as a result of a discussion we had some time
ago in private. I need not respond to such
charges, as it all quickly degrades into "he said,
she said", and I don't play those games.

The good news is that no "damage" was done, as
Ruth clearly is still able to cherry-pick her
way through any study she pleases, and make
attempts to contradict the conclusions
of the authors. As I do not publish papers in
this field, my attempts to merely understand her
point of view have no significance, regardless of
what she might claim she thinks I said.

While Ruth is entitled to her opinion of me,
I expect her conduct on BeeSource to meet at
least minimal standards of civility. Even if I
had somehow confused her, her options do not
include name-calling in a public forum.

While I am one of the strongest supporters of
her efforts to make her stance known, I reserve
the right to disagree with what she calls
"evidence", and I expect to not be subjected to
verbal abuse simply because I ask simple and
clearly-worded questions intended to enhance
understanding.

Imagine for a moment the reaction if I called
Ruth a "[edit by admin]". I don't think you
would be asking *Ruth* to explain why I
might have said such a thing, now would you?









[ February 10, 2006, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> You take that sort of vicious bile SERIOUSLY?

You call her words "[edit by admin]", she calls you a "[edit by admin]." Doesn't sound too civil on either side. I'm more interested in a claim such as the one she states. if it's not true, then I have no problem deleting it and warning her. I haven't been following this thread and didn't go back and read the whole thing. Can you make it easy on me and simply give me a sound response to her accusations even if you have to cut and paste an earlier response to this? Were such tests ever done?

- Barry

[ February 10, 2006, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

"You call her words "[edit by admin]", she calls you a "[edit by admin]."

No, not at all... first she uses the term
[censored by jhf, in the spirit of charity] 
(a rather nasty name among the white
lab-coat set) more than once, _THEN_ she
calls me a "[edit by admin]", and then when
_you_ ask _ME_ *in public* to respond" *in public* 
to her specious claim and name-calling, I can 
think of no other way to describe such random 
senseless rage than "[edit by admin]", 'cause that's 
what it is.









> if it's not true

Of course its not.
She is clearly confused.
I said that before.
I said it here:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000160;p=5#000118 
Very short, very sweet.

> simply give me a sound response to her 
> accusations

[edit by admin] 

If you must know, I merely did her a favor
years(?) ago and suggested that she talk to the
folks at the Rothamsted Radar Entomology Unit
about work that was then in the pre-print stage. 
If I would have somehow [edited by admin] in the process,
it would seem clear that any such [edited by admin] would be
exposed by merely doing what I suggested she do,
speaking the the folks at Rothamsted. Maybe you
can make sense of it, I sure can't.

The essential issue here is that a review
of this thread alone reveals more venom being
spat at multiple beekeepers by Ruth than would
be found in several hives of AHB.

You decide if this is acceptable behavior or
not, but please reconsider the practice of
asking a victim of multiple verbal assaults to
speculate on the motives behind the crime,
especially if you are going to equate my answers
to your *direct public cross-examination*
as being equal to her multiple unprovoked attacks.
If you want more detail, my e-mail addresses are
very well-known, or you can use the private
message thingy.

[ February 12, 2006, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Despite Ruth's total lack of civility, I wish
to ask the moderators to ignore any/all
personal attacks launched against me by
Ruth, and refrain from revoking her posting
privileges due to such incivility.

>Ruth does nothing but enhance my reputation
with her attacks, so her every snarl in my
direction warms the hartles of my... 

That was then, this is now.  

>While Ruth is entitled to her opinion of me,
I expect her conduct on BeeSource to meet at
least minimal standards of civility. Even if I
had somehow confused her, her options do not
include name-calling in a public forum.

Which way do you want it Jimbo? Both ways?


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"You call her words "[edit by admin]", she calls you a "[edit by admin] ."

Describing someone's words as "[edit by admin]" is attacking his/her words. Calling someone a [edit by admin] is a personal attack. There is a difference.

It is entirely different for me to suggest that something you said was silly, than to call you silly.

Keith

[ February 10, 2006, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I'm sorry this thread took a nasty turn, I've been enjoying the discussion. While Ruth's approach has been generally adversarial, I have tried not to "take the bait" and think that most of us have "tried to be nice" while pressing for details on this issue. I for one had no firm opinion on the DL controversy one way or the other before this thread started, and I was only peripherally aware of it at all. Coaxing information out of Ruth has been challenging, as has understanding much of what she's written, partly because it's so involved and partly because of the general rhetoric which has not been pleasant. That said, I have tried to keep an open mind and I have learned a great deal.

I'd like to encourage EVERYONE involved to sit back, take a deep breath, and resume discussion with an attitude of acceptance and tolerance.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Although it may be somewhat off topic, it is on topic with comunicating between the bees as to where a place is.

When a swarm leaves a hive, from what I have heard, they follow scout worker bees to the new location. How do the scouts compare the different sites to choose one over the others, and tell the queen where it is?
Especially, telling the queen how to find it.
The answer may shed some light on how they comunicate a new floral site.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Bullseye, I think Keith did a very
craftsman-like job of explaining the
essential difference, and I can't
think of a better way to explain.

I guess that I should make it clear that
it is not my place to defend the many
people insulted, slighted, or attacked
so far, nor would I presume to appoint
such as task to myself. I can take it upon
myself to point out that other discussion
topics, even the highly emotional ones found
in "Tailgater", have not turned as nasty as
this one.

It is left as an exercise for the astute
student to locate the unique source of the
nastiness.

Now that my downloads are done, I will go
back upstairs to the usual Friday night party
that tends to break out around here.
(We were a little short of slower merengue
music, as we have several guests who
appear to need training wheels. What did we
do before bittorrent?)

If anyone wants to further debate "dance 
language", please excuse me from the fray. 
Around here on weekends, "dance language" is 
the look on your dance partners face, and the
data compression algorithm has yet to be 
developed that can equal the robust 
information-carrying capacity of a single 
eyebrow raised by a woman.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Barry,

In his response to you of Feb. 3, Jim did his best to evade answering your question. After you asked him again for a straight yes, or no answer, he said that I accused him of something that never happened; that he merely did me a favor years (?) ago, by advising me to "talk to the folks at the Rothamsted Radar Entomology Unit
about work that was then in the pre-print stage".

This is another batch of lies. He did not do me any favors regarding that study. And he never advised me to contact the radar-team at Rothamsted. He advised me, just as I had stated very clearly, that the team conducted tests using whole large patches of sources of attractive odors, instead of very small sources of attractive odors, as is commonly done. He claimed that results obtained with such small sources do not provide good evidence in favor of the DL hypothesis, because this is not a natural situation, and that the radar-team specifically used large patches (of flowers, I think, instead). He said he knew about it, because he had seen a preview of the publication, which was sent to him for consultation as a radar-expert.

I argued that it would be very difficult to properly control tests using large patches. Finally, I decided on my own (!), to ask a honeybee-researcher at Rothampsed who did not participate in that specific study, but knew the radar-team, and sent me an "Abstract" of that study, in an attempt to close very heated debates we had for months over the DL hypothesis. I explained very carefully why I was asking the question. He informed me, that as far as he knew, no tests using large patches were done in that study at all. I advised Jim of that, and he responded by saying that he would not argue with that information. When the study was eventually published, the information given to me by the Rothamsted researcher turned out, not surprisingly, to have been quite correct. 

Incidentally, I may still have those e-mail exchanges with Jim on this specific issue. I might look for them, even though his treatment of the DL controversy has become ever more revolting to me. [edit by admin]

In his Onlist post (of Feb. 2 11:05) he told another, though only implicit lie, concerning v. Frisch's first study on honeybee recruitment; which led v. Frisch to fully justifiably conclude that honeybee-recruits use odor alone, and NO information about the location of any food. The results of that study already grossly contradicted his later DL hypothesis. Foragers in that study performed only round dances (without even a trace of a waggle). According to the DL hypothesis, in the honeybee-strain he used in that study, round dances should result in recruits finding food with the foragers' food-odor, only within a radius of 100 m. from the hive. In that first study, recruits that attended round dances found dishes with the foragers' food-odor at any distance he tested, up to 1,000 m. from the hive.

Jim's idea of doing science is to demand that all evidence against the DL hypothesis be ignored; which is just one mark of "very sick science". However, as far as the results v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, Jim also stated that v. Frisch could have later improved his technique. I did not label that statement an outright lie, because Jim only used the word "could". However, in terms of the implication of his statement, the statement is no better than an outright lie, because the statement implies that v. Frisch later repeated the tests done in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, using an improved technique, and, then, obtained different results which fit within the DL hypothesis. 

What Jim is insinuating here is that the technique v. Frisch used in his first study on honeybee-recruitment was faulty, and, therefore, provided distorted results. The mere insinuation is an insult to any scientist able to think straight. The tests v. Frisch carried out in his first study were so simple, that the technique he used for those very simple tests, were perfectly adequate, and did not require any improvement. No one, other than Jim, ever even remotely suggested that there was anything wrong in that study, and Jim permitted himself to make his suggestion, without pointing to any faults in the techniques v. Frisch had used.

Moreover, as any scientist knows, had v. Frisch repeated, with an improved technique, the tests he had done in that first study, and obtained different results, he should have published his new results together with his original results, and also explained what changes he introduced, to improve his technique. V. Frisch, however, could not have done anything like that at all, for the very simple reason that he never repeated the tests he did in that first study, either using his original techniques, or any possible improvement. He simply avoided repeating those tests altogether. And he also stopped mentioning those results.

Staunch DL supporters might have learned a "good"
lesson from him, i.e. that they must try only to confirm the DL hypothesis, by hook, or by crook. And one way to accomplish that, is to avoid repeating tests that provided "bad" results. I noted, that the team of Michelsen et al., that carried the first study on honeybee-recruitment using the dancing :"robot" bee, included Lindauer, v. Frisch's best known student & collaborator. The second study was done by Kirchner & Towne, where Kirchner, who was a member of Michelsen's team, already knew that the results of all the distance-tests conducted by Michelsen et al., grossly contradicted the expectations of DL supporters themselves from the DL hypothesis. What did Kirchner & Towne do? They avoided carrying out any distance-tests!

[ February 07, 2006, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Iddee,

The only correct detail in the "story" you heard is that the swarm follows the scouts. If you stop to think for a moment, you will realize that, since the swarm follows the scouts, and the scouts know where to go, bees in the swarm do not need to know where to go at all.

The scouts do not tell anyone where the nest-site is. Some bees in the swarm that attend dances of the scouts find the site the scouts are visiting, by use of odor alone all along, and become new dancing scouts. The "story" that the scouts decide which is the best nest-site originated with Lindauer (the one scientist in v. Frisch's team who did most of the research on swarms), but the "story" is utterly groundless.

Scouts dance because other swarm-mates start chasing after them. Swarm-mates are attracted by the odors the scouts bring back, which are odors that the bees have learned to associate with a nest. The mere sensing of such odors serves as a reward for swarm-mates to chase after the scouts, even though the scouts distribute no food. The scouts try to escape from those who chase after them, either because they have no food to distribute; or because swarm-mates that are attracted to them, and crowd around them, prevent them from flying back to the nest-site they found, which attracted them by its odors, in the first place. And this chase & escape cause the dance. If other scouts return to the swarm after having found another nest-site, with odors that are even more attractive, swarm-mates stop chasing after the scouts that carry less attractive odors, and start chasing after the new scouts that carry more attractive odors. When no one chases after them, the scouts that carry less attractive odors do not dance. As more and more nest-mates that attend dances of nest-scouts that carry more attractive odors, find the nest-site visited by those scouts, you get more dances by bees that visited that nest, and the result is that eventually there are many dancing-scouts all visiting the most attractive nest. (I think Lindauer found out that the scouts that initially danced for a less attractive site, may themselves be attracted by the odors of scouts that carry more attractive odors, and if they find the nest "advertised" by the scouts whose dances they attended, they themselves then dance for the new nest, and stop flying to the nest to which they flew before.)

The explanation may seem complex, because it describes a long process, but it is basically very simple.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> If you have to ask, then you clearly have not
read

Well, the link to the response you gave me does nothing for me. The question still remains and it would be nice if you could simply answer it without going off on other personal things about Ruth. Don't do what you accuse her of doing.

- Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Don't do what you accuse her of doing.

Barry, I think Keith said it best:

_"Describing someone's words as "[edit by admin]"
is attacking his/her words. Calling someone a 
[edit by admin] is a personal attack. There is
a difference."_
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000160;p=6#000126 

Regardless Barry, you said _"if it's not true, 
then I have no problem deleting it and warning her."_

It is *not* true at all, so do so at once, please.
(I will maintain that she is "mistaken", as I
have never called anyone a [edited, in the spirit 
of charity], and I'm not about to start.)

Check your "report post" message stream, where
this entire thread has been slogged through, and
the unprovoked insults, personal attacks, and
libelous statements made by Ruth have been 
annotated for your convenience.

If it was just me, I'd shrug it off, as I am
a big boy, and can ignore such things. But it
is not just me, everyone who dares ask a question
or even ask for clarification is overtly and
deliberately insulted, over and over.

[ February 12, 2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Barry,

What I said about Jim advising me some two years ago, that he had seen a preview of the radar-tracking study (eventually published in Nature, on May 12, 2004); that the preview was sent to him, as a radar-expert, for consultation; and that he knew, based on that preview, that the study included tests using large patches, instead of the very small sources of attractive odors used in such tests, is perfectly true. There was no room for any misunderstanding on my part there.

I stated in my post of yesterday, about this issue, that it would be very difficult to properly control such tests. In fact, it would be impossible to properly control such tests, because the tests would require training foragers to forage on such a large patch, and then providing other, identical, large patches in other parts of the field. However, in order to conduct any tests on whether recruits do, or do not use the spatial-information contained in the foragers'-dances, you must know where exactly in the large patch, the foragers foraged each time before they returned to the hive. It is impossible to determine anything like that, when the foragers are not trained to forage at one small site (practically a point-source), but in a large patch, instead. I actually raised this issue with Jim, because I did not believe that anyone could conduct a proper test using large patches, and would, therefore, even attempt anything like that.

However, since he kept insisting he had seen a preview of the study sent to him prior to publication, I finally decided to ask a colleague of the radar-team at Rothamsted, who had sent me an "Abstract" of that study, that was posted on the Internet, about a year and a half before the study was actually published (in an attempt to close, in favor of the DL hypothesis, months of very heated debates we had over that issue). 

Jim's posts on this issue came from an e-mail address that included something like "radar.gov", in it; which led me to believe that he was, indeed, involved in some radar-work for the Government, although I have no idea in what capacity.

Incidentally, although he informed me that , as far as he knew, which eventually turned out to be quite correct, that no tests using large patches were done in that study at all, he, very conscientiously, and properly, refused to disclose to me prior to publication, any further details about that study.

Jim's attempt to claim that I generally mistreat list members, is pure hokum, and also irrelevant. I have never called any other list-member, a "[edit by admin]", and I never called anyone else anything like that, without clear evidence.

I have something more to say about that radar-tracking study, which I will do in the next, separate post.

[ February 10, 2006, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> ...attempt to claim that I generally 
> mistreat list members, is pure hokum,

No, it is easy to objectively verify via a simple
review of all 53 of your posts to date, the bulk
of which contain this exact sort of blatant and
unprovoked mistreatment, directed at all and
sundry. See here for a tidy list:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=recent_user_posts;u=00002749 

> I have never called any other list-member a 
> "[edit by admin]",

While you have used other insults for others,
they were no less unfortunate and no less cruel.

> and I never called anyone else anything like 
> that, without clear evidence.

Regardless of your _personal opinion_ of what
constitutes "clear evidence", one simply does
not conduct oneself in a manner that is so
insulting to so many.

If it were only me you were insulting, you might
have some tiny shred of potential credibility on
this whole "accusation" thingy, but you have
insulted too many, too often, so a clear and
compelling pattern of abuse exists in your postings.

If you eliminate me from the equation for
a moment, you are then forced to explain the
justification for your openly hostile and
insulting treatment of the many *others* you
have bullied and insulted for simply daring to ask
you a question about your claims.

"Cause it's not "just me", darlin', its either
"just you", or its "everyone but you".

And, in regard to your specific accusations, it
might help if you picked a story and stuck with it,
not that I have any intention of dignifying such
a silly accusation with a response, mind you.

[ February 10, 2006, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Barry, again,

Re the radar-tracking study by Riley et al., published in Nature (May 12, 2005). I noted that a colleague of the British radar-team informed me of that study at least a year and a half prior to publication, and sent me an "Abstract" posted on the Internet, claiming that the authors have succeeded, for the first time, in obtaining direct evidence that honeybee-recruits use the spatial-information contained in foragers' dances.

I responded by stating that I was naturally a bit curious about the study, but I was "not holding my breath", because I concluded that no radar-tracking could confirm the DL hypothesis. Why? For the very simple reason that the upwind zigzag, which new-arrivals invariably perform from a distance of at least 10 m. off a source, as observed by humans with the naked eye in thousands of cases, alone suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis; and no radar could ever refute such very clear and simple, naked-eye observations!

You can imagine my surprise when the study was finally published, and I found out that none of the bees radar-tracked in that study, ever performed any upwind zigzag, and this includes even the only two tracked bees that arrived at the feeder-site.

The authors believe that this was due to the fact that they used only unscented food, and presumably also succeeded in preventing the feeder-site (stand, feeder, and food) from becoming Now, the authors frequently replaced the feeder, with a new, clean feeder, with fresh food. But the feeder-stand (a chair) was never replaced. And I question that the authors were indeed able to prevent that chair from becoming contaminated by environmental odors. Why? Because the study was conducted in a very large pasture, with different types of vegetation. The pasture was mowed, but the weather (unlike in Wenner's dry desert), was such that the grass left still attached to the roots in the ground, continued to grow. Under the circumstances, the mowed grass might never have dried to the point of becoming odorless for honeybees, with their exceptionally high sensitivity to odors. And tiny bits and pieces of the mowed grass, light enough to be carried by the wind, could then easily contaminate the feeder-stand with environmental odors.

In one of the 6 very long messages I posted on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list, I dismissed the conclusions of the authors of that radar-tracking study on the basis of only one argument: Contrary to the authors (who rely on a totally groundless statement Sandeman & Tautz),
, honeybee-recruits never find any odorless resources in nature. But as soon as you use scented food you get the invariable upwind zigzag, which alone suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis. This means that the authors experimentally confirmed that honeybees have a DL that exists only outside of nature, i.e. outside of the real world; which means that such a DL cannot exist at all. I noted that there are other problems with the results, but I did not go into further details, that are actually very interesting to consider. (I did go into such additional details on Scifraud, and in e-mail exchanges with Wenner. But, I shall not provide such additional details here, either).

In fact, the authors insisted on eliminating the effects of odors, even though there was no need for that at all, because the results of tests done with scented food (starting with v. Freisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment), had already sufficed to completely discredit the DL hypothesis. I strongly suspect that in so doing, the authors managed, advertently, or otherwise, to achieve more than they had intended.

To be sure of that, I need to know to what extent the authors indeed succeeded in preventing the feeder-stand from becoming contaminated by environmental odors. The only way I might know that is by obtaining an answer to one question, to which only the German members of the team of authors who published the study, i.e. Greggers, or Menzel, or both would know the answer. None of them ever answered my question. Greggers, who had provided me with many technical details, not included in the published report, never responded to that question, even after I asked him that question repeatedly.

Now, I know, based on the information Greggers provided me, that, as was to be expected, there were many un-tracked bees that found the feeder-site, sometimes arriving in the company of trained foragers, and sometimes arriving on their own. (In fact, the way the authors obtained the full complement of active foragers at the experimental feeder, was by obtaining 5 bees that foraged at the feeder when it was initially placed right in front of the hive, and then moving the feeder, together with those 5 bees, to the experimental site, 200 m. away from the hive. Additional foragers were obtained from new-bees that then arrived at the feeder, but only new bees that arrived in the company of trained foragers, were able to find the food, because of some "key" that was needed to open the feeder. New bees that arrived on their own, I suppose also, when no trained foragers were feeding there, did not know how to open the feeder. This is, however, not at all the issue that interests me here.)

What I need to know is whether un-tracked bees that arrived at the feeder at the experimental site on their own, also arrived without any upwind zigzag? 

If such new bees invariably arrived without any upwind zigzag, this would mean that they found the site without ever responding to any attractive odors; which would provide clear evidence that recruits can do it. The authors could, then, rely on their own evidence, and would not have needed to rely on a statement by Sandeman & Tautz, to that effect. If the un-tracked new bees that found the feeder-site on their own, arrived with an upwind zigzag, they obviously responded to attractive odors, and the site was not at all free of odor-contamination.
Of course, if the site was not free of such contamination, those two tracked bees that arrived at the site on their own, without any upwind zigzag, could not have been regular foragers!

I need someone to pose the question to Greggers and Menzel. I.e., I need someone to e-mail these authors and ask whether un-tracked bees that found the feeder at the experimental site on their own, arrived there with, or without an upwind zigzag? The questioner could state that he knows, or expects that such new-arrivals actually occurred, or even open by asking whether such new-arrivals occurred, and if so, whether they arrived with, or without an upwind zigzag.

Would you at all consider undertaking such a "daunting" task? If you will, I shall provide you with the e-mail addresses of these 2 authors.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"I need someone to pose the question to Greggers and Menzel."

Ruth, why do you think they would rather answer someone else faster or more completely that they answered you?

Keith


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Yes, I understand it now. It's very complicated and I had to work at it for a while, but now I ubderstand perfectly. I haven't had to study that hard since I learned how a hoop snake rolls into a hoop and rolls down a hill and stings a tree to death. Thank You for the info.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

They know I am a staunch DL opponent, as I have never made a secret of it. I have no idea how they might respond to questions from anyone else. But it might be worthwhile trying.

In fact, I never received any response from Menzel, on other issues I had raised with him long before the radar-tracking study. 

I can't remember, and I won't bother to check, why it was Greggers that provided me with additional information about the Nature radar-tracking study, and answered many additional questions I had; except that he advised me he was the scientist that designed the study.

Greggers, however, stopped responding to my questions following a specific incident. The authors of that radar-tracking study note in print, that their study explains why the use of DL information is not very efficient. I pointed out to Greggers, that this was not good enough, because the authors seriously accept the conclusions of Gould's 1975 study in Science. But as I had already pointed out in print, if one seriously accepts Gould's interpretations of his data, than presumed use of DL information is not only very inefficient, but it is even less efficient than use of odor alone all along, in terms of the number of dances performed per new-arrival. And a DL that is less efficient than use of odor alone all along, could never evolve in the first place.

Greggers, who obviously knew nothing about it, asked me for a published reference. I responded by asking him whether he wanted a copy of my first critique of Gould's conclusions, published in J. theoret. Biol., in 1978, or a copy of a much later, very brief, 2000 ABJ publication, in which I pointed out the obvious, i.e. that a DL that turns out to be far less efficient than use of odor alone all along, could never evolve in the first place.

In fact, in my 1978 critique I simply used the total number of dances performed during each separate period for tallying new-arrivals, and divided that by the total number of new-arrivals during that same period. It turned out that the ratio was far higher in tests done under v. Frisch's conditions (where according to Gould, most new-arrivals must have used DL information), than in the tests done under Wenner's conditions (where Gould claimed that most new-arrivals must have used odor alone all along). There was only one tallying period under v. Frisch's conditions, that provided a mild exception to this rule. And that specific tallying period should be given the least weight, because the total number of new-arrivals during that period, was, atypically, very small.

As I noted in one of my 6 long posts on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list, Gould did not need to gather any information about the total number of dances that occurred during each separate tallying period. He never used that information, and in fact, he provided it only in his 1975 study (but not in his Nature 1974, or his J. comp. Physiol. 1975 , reports on the same study). Fortunately, Gould gathered that information, and also took the trouble to publish it, because this enabled me to use it!

Greggers never responded to my offer to send him a xerox copy of my 1978 publication (which was most probably available in the library of his institution, anyway), or my 2000 publication on this issue, or both; if he would only let me know what he would like to have. He also never responded to any further questions from me. I, therefore, have no idea whether he was in shock, or he simply had enough of my questions.

This is what happens when you communicate with a "black hole". You can never know exactly what that "black hole" has on his mind.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Ruth,

Thanks for that explaination, it is clear to me why you need someone else to ask those questions.

I am curious, aside from the DL controversy which has obviously occupied you for several decades, what exactly do you do? Professionally that is.

Keith


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

Believe me, opposing the DL hypothesis is a full-time "job"; especially since ever so often I get, not surprisingly, pretty depressed, because of this. But as soon as I regain some energy, I am up and fighting again, trying, among others, to figure out new-strategies. My best material has never been published, or even submitted for publication, although, during the past several years, I posted a lot of it on the Internet, mostly, unfortunately, on list where most members do not want to hear about honeybees; are not interested in the behavioral science (even if they are mostly scientists); are interested in the behavioral science, but can not understand that the DL controversy concerns the very foundations of their major field of interest, or are not scientists at all. This alone is pretty depressing, and if besides being utterly depressing and exasperating, the DL controversy had not been also the most amusing experience I have ever had, I doubt I could have taken it.

I have also become involved, on the Internet, in debunking other claims about the existence of genetically predetermined behavior, such as the claim that various sub-humans use a magnetic-compass. I call that the "magnetic compass" (MC) hypothesis. I maintain that only humans can use a magnetic compass, provided they construct one, borrow one, or purchase one. (I should have added that they could also steal one.) Now, please, don't ask me anything about that, because I will not deal with the MC controversy in this forum.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"don't ask me anything about that"

Ruth,

Worry not, I wouldn't dream of asking. Your full time "job" is opposing the DL hypothesis? Who exactly funds this endeavor? You must have another job?

I know you have posted that you are a scientist. I am curious, do you use any of your copious energy to discover new things, answer new questions, or are you mainly focused on discrediting the misguided work of others?

"My best material has never been published, or even submitted for publication"

Why is that?

Keith

[ February 04, 2006, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

Sorry, but I'd rather not answer any more personal questions.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Ruth,

Fair enough. 

Keith


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Believe me, opposing the DL hypothesis is a 
> full-time "job"

Let me get this straight - *even you* feel
that you are merely advocating a pet theory,
rather than trying to keep a consistently open 
mind, and trying to seek _objective truth_?

If true, this explains volumes.

If true, I must apologize, as I've never
encountered an actual practitioner of Irving
Langmuir's classic "pathological science" before.
Now it makes more sense why you would extract
tiny tidbits from the honest work of others, and
claim that such tiny things in so many peer-reviewed 
papers and studies should prompt one to claim that
the "results" contradict the clearly-worded 
conclusions of their authors.

If true, It also explains why you simply review
and critique the work of others, rather than
contributing your own tangible work.

If true, it becomes clear why you are unable to
calmly discuss the matter, and are unable or
uninterested in speaking about any other issue.

If true, this seems to be a full-blown obsession, 
rather than an interesting or entertaining issue 
of inquiry. Obsession would also explains the 
attacks. The more cogent the argument that might 
conflict with your preconceived notion, the more 
Ad Hominem attacks that are used in an attempt to 
silence the critic or questioner, or at least 
draw attention away from your lack of a responsive
answer to the question or critique.

I am so sorry.
Its all just too sad for words.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Jim, 

You wish to encounter an actual practitioner of "pathological science"? Just look in the mirror!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Okay, I'm closing this thread until I have the time to address it, which I will. Right now, it must not continue this way.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I have gone through the entire thread and edited as needed. Some messages were deleted, others had words removed and/or edited. I have decided to be as liberal as possible with this thread due to the fact that there are two very strong-willed members responsible for a lot of the postings. I left as much as possible untouched.

That said, I won't continue to put this much time into moderating this thread. You know, Ruth is the way she is, and no one is going to change anything about her relational style. Same is true for Jim. So often, a discussion gets so far off track because people start to focus on all the "style" stuff. I appreciate the route George and Kieck took. Didn't get ruffled and kept asking questions and stayed focused. I learned from their exchange.

Ruth, others have given you sound advice that would go a long way in getting people to understand and see your point of view. I encourage you to be softer in your delivery without sacrificing your viewpoint. BTW, just because I personally favor/agree with Wenner's stand on DL, it has no bearing on how I enforce the posting rules on this board. Everyone is on equal footing when using the board.

As for Jim lying to you about a certain event, I'm interested in understanding this. However, it is on your shoulders to back up your claim with proof, if that's possible without it being a "he said - she said" thing. If this can't be done, then I will expect you to remove all comments referring to Jim as such.

Bullseye Bill, thanks for the levity!

- Barry


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Here's a twist on honey bee dance language that ought to get people thinking..

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n11_v18/ai_19847180


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Bullseye Bill, thanks for the levity!








I just wanna DANCE!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I just wanna DANCE!

I'm sorry to point it out,
but somehow, your dancing has
a distinct odor about it.  

Draw your own conclusions...


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Draw your own conclusions... 

Either your tin foil hat is too tight or you've been drinking too much kool-aid, as usual.

As for me, I'll just blame it on the bossa-nova 

[ February 07, 2006, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: BULLSEYE BILL ]


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

I have received a lot of emails about this string and Jim emailed me and said I should moderate.

Bad beekeepers! Bad bad beekeepers!
Now be nice, and go play.

I really dont care about DL, I really dont. On the scale of 1-10 of importance in my life 1 being the least important and 10 being the most important. I would put DL somewhere around -100. Theres way too many other things about beekeeping that we need to figure out before we put so much time and effort into DL. Thats why when this thread started I read about the first 4 or 5 post and then lost interest very quickly.

As far as who said what to who and when and about what. I went back and read through most of the thread. I skipped through but I know I got 4 pages read before I fell into a coma.

So this lying thing. She said that he lied he says he didnt. And all this goes back years(?). (You think I dont care about DL)

Ok, Ruth Im leaning a little on Jims side here. You have given some long elaborate post to answer Berrys question, but I have not read any type of proof that Jim has lied. Yes it is possible that somewhere in the endless string of post I missed it. If so please show it to me againno I dont want to hear he said, I would like to see some real proof. Something that will back up what youre saying and please, PLEASE! No long endless way too wordy post. Reply to me like you would to any uneducated country boy.

Jim, stop trying to defend everyone else. There big beekeepers let them take care of themselves. And, youre a big boy, Im sure this isnt the first time someone has said something bad to you. Remember, sticks and stones

Finally, you people do realize that this forum is for the chat room. I mean its here so you can post dates and times that you would like to meet people in the chat room, which is in another location altogether.

http://www.bee-l.com/beesourcechat.htm

Why cant you guys go to another forum and talk about this stuff. You know one of the ones where somebody may read what youre saying? Hey, I bet MB is up to a million posts by now and would dearly love to have you in his forum (sorry Mike its what you get for being top moderator). Hed answer each one of your post on this subject and would do a much better job of seeing who is right and wrongI on the other hand would like my forum to go back to the nice peaceful forum that it once was. So if everyone would do me a great favor and leave me alone, leave this forum alone, and let this string die.(as it should, it has accomplished nothing) 

If you really want to get this off your chest and would like to chat in real time stop by the chat room, you can even open a sub-room where you can sit and chat all night and all day for all I care. Its open 24/7/365.

BB


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2006)

Okay BB, we took our controversial marbles and left your playground.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'll confess that I'm a little scared to start up again on this thread. I hate seeing threads digress so far away from the original topic. At the risk of setting it off again, though, I'll proceed.

First, I have to say I'm very much intrigued by this controversy. Sure, I lean toward one side, but that doesn't mean that I won't listen to arguments for or against other explanations.

I've heard some of the controversy over Gregor Mendel's experiments in genetics, too. If you didn't realize that his experiments are controversial at all, the debate lies in the absolute perfection of his results. Somehow, Mendel happened to select only traits that show simple forms of inheritance in pea plants. Then, his data from his experiments are virtually perfect statistically. No one else has been able to replicate his numbers. So, some people claim that he probably threw out data to show better results, and maybe even altered data to fit his hypothesis.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting or denying the claim that Mendel may have altered his data. I'm just pointing out that many other hypotheses and theories in science have their supporters and detractors, too.

So, here's what I'm really curious about:

First I asked for a clear definition of this hypothesis (dance language hypothesis) that we've been discussing. For me, an understanding of the issues surrounding a controversy like this begin with first defining the terms. In this case, I'd like to know exactly what this hypothesis says. Are we talking about any form of communication among bees other than simply using odors? Are we talking specifically about information conveyed through visually observing a physical sequence of behaviors (a "dance")? Or what?

This response, "You demand that I provide you with an exact definition of the DL hypothesis, after I said that no such exact definition exists at all. Obviously I cannot give you something that does not exist...," just confuses me further. It's already been stated that I'm naive on this subject (and, I'll admit, I am; that's why I'm here -- I'm trying learn about this controversy), but how can support or reject a hypothesis that doesn't even exist?

Next question: is the "odor hypothesis" regarded as the null hypothesis in these experiments and the "dance language hypothesis" used as the alternate hypothesis, or the other way around? In view of the ways I've learned about designing experiments (and, I'll admit, that these aren't the only ways and may not even be the best ways), the null hypotheses in both cases should be, "Bees don't use (fill in one of the hypotheses)." Then, we either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. If we find evidence they use odors, we reject the null hypothesis. If we find evidence they use dances, we reject the null hypothesis. I'd like an clear explanation how and why one of the two hypotheses rejects the other.

Having said that, I can see some flaws in the designs of others' experiments that may not rule out other mechanisms while attempting to test hypotheses. To my way of thinking, then, we need to come up with better experimental designs to really address the dance language hypothesis (but we still need to define such a hypothesis first).

As far as making claims -- by either side -- that the information necessary to understand evidence is beyond the comprehension of others on this board, I'm surprised and disappointed. Speaking as someone who works in science, I feel that all scientists should be able to relate their work to other people at virtually any level. If a scientist can't explain what he studies to the average person, he doesn't really know what he's doing in the first place. Remove the ability to relate what we do to others, and the relevance vanishes -- why should we as taxpayers support research that we can't understand, and, therefore, has no bearing on our lives?


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

Admin is sooo nice. Thank you!  

Now everyone dance together nice, and if you slow down maybe you won't step on each others feet.  

BB


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

If there is evidence with more to say, why not post it here so the discussion can continue (in a civil manner) and not get splintered into yet another thread?

The other thread that was in the Chat Forum was moved here also, but it is far down in the list of threads. Last month sometime?

[ February 11, 2006, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

BillyBob said:


> I really dont care about DL, I really dont. On the scale of 1-10 of importance in my life 1 being the least important and 10 being the most important. I would put DL somewhere around -100. Theres way too many other things about beekeeping that we need to figure out before we put so much time and effort into DL. Thats why when this thread started I read about the first 4 or 5 post and then lost interest very quickly.


I couldn't have said it better.....just my 2 cents!!!!!!! Ding-Ding,,,,,Round 7 

[ February 11, 2006, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: TwT ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Barry has done yeoman like work, slogging
though and deleting all of Ruth's more overtly
libelous statements, so I thought I'd pop in
here and state for the record that my future
contributions on this issue (and any other
statements made by Ruth) can be assumed
to be any or all of:
</font>
"_Yawn_"</font>
"_Nothing new here_"</font>
"_Gee, the paper cited draws the exact
*opposite* conclusion, I wonder why?_".</font>
Aside from those replies, I don't really
need to say any more, so I won't bother.
The reader can insert them as required without
needing me to bother to actually post them.

There's some interesting work that I'll go over
in a spring edition of _Bee Culture_ that
has some direct bearing on this subject area,
and puts a stake through the heart of several
misconceptions, but I need graphics to explain
the work clearly, so when it is done, I'll toss
into into the "reprints" section of the Bee-Quick website.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Part of the problem as I see it is that dance language researchers already have their minds made up before doing the experiments. Heres an example:

The honey bee dance language, used to recruit nestmates to food sources, is regarded by many as one of the most intriguing communication systems in animals.
What were the ecological circumstances that favoured its evolution? We examined this question by creating experimental phenotypes in which the location information of the dances was obscured. Surprisingly, in two temperate habitats, these colonies performed only insignificantly worse than colonies which were able to communicate normally. However, foraging efficiency was substantially impaired in an Asian tropical forest following this manipulation. This indicates that dance language communication about food source locations may be important in some habitats, but not in others.

Here the researchers attempt to explain why they got the surprising results they did not expect: 

Our finding that dance information has no bearing on foraging success in the two European habitats might therefore be explained by the distribution of food sources
in these habitats. Food source distribution might explain our results in two ways: it either influences the importance of communication directly, by determining foraging
efficiency with and without oriented dances, or in history, by causing differing selection pressures on bees living in different habitats.

In the end there is still a rationalization for the dance language:

If the dance language has lost its importance for foraging in some habitats, stabilizing selection might nevertheless result from its function of communicating locations of nest sites

Dornhaus, A., ChittkaBehav, L.Why do honey bees dance? Ecol Sociobiol (2004) 55:395401


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Dick, I'm sorry, but you have completely
misrepresented the work of Dornhaus and
ChittkaBehav by taking a quote out of context.

Here is the full text of the paper Dick cited,
http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff/chittka/2004/DornhausChittka_BES04.pdf

Which, if read, clearly does *NOT* represent
that "_dance information has no bearing on
foraging success_" as a general case. They
found *specific* environments where the
dances indicated exactly what was there - a
widespread availability of similar nectar sources,
so many, that sending recruits to specific areas
did not result in any specific advantage in terms
of colony weight gain.

On page 399 of the journal issue mentioned, the
*in context* statement is:

_In such a situation, communication
about these few, ephemeral resources might be
essential for efficient foraging. In temperate
habitats on the other hand, the bees diet
contains a much higher portion of widely
distributed herbs and shrubs (Heinrich 1979),
since many trees are wind-pollinated (Whitehead
1968). Plant individuals often have only small
numbers of flowers with usually minute nectar
amounts (Heinrich 1976) and longer flowering times
(Primack 1985). Both the spatial and the temporal
distribution of food sources might thus differ
between tropical and temperate habitats.

These factors may make location communication
*less* worthwhile in some temperate habitats,
and occasionally even unnecessary. However, in
those temperate habitats with continuous forest
cover, communicating location may be as important
as in tropical forest (Visscher and Seeley 1982).

Our finding that dance information has no bearing..."_

So, what they did was look at dancing versus
colony weight gain, and they said something
that should be obvious - that vectoring foragers
to specific sites doesn't offer much advantage
when the colony is surrounded by a diffuse
planting of nectar sources of similar "value"
to the colony.

This is similar to saying that offering someone
specific directions to a specific store to
buy milk is of little value when they can pass
multiple places that sell milk no matter WHICH
way they drive.


----------

