# Evidence



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Actully, Ruth, it has been moved to a more appropriate forum. 

Again you are posting in the wrong area of Beesource. This Chatroom Forum is for posting information about the Chatroom, times and subjects of interest to those that go there. I explained all that to you, but it did not seem to soak in. I will try again -

***********************************************
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 Chatroom 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 usually not monitored and not censored.

The chatroom site is here:

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

***********************************************


If you really want to find your origional thread about the DL, go to the main Bee Forum, it's there.

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004645


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Bullseye Bill,

I wanted to add to my subject of "Evidence", which has been moved to the "Bee Forum", by you, I suppose. You now advise me that the "Bee Forum" is not the appropriate forum for my addition to the subject of "Evidence". I don't know why this subject has been moved to an inappropriate forum. Perhaps my addition to this specific subject is inappropriate for this forum, because the addition is relevant to the now closed "DL" subject. But I give up!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I wanted to add to my subject of "Evidence", which has been moved to the "Bee Forum", by you, I suppose.

I suppose, by Barry or one of the Forum administrators. The Bee Forum is the proper place for this discussion!

Please continue.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Fergusson,

Earlier today I sent a brief message about the "evidence" for a story that staunch DL supporters had circulated among themselves, and who knows where else, as "a well-known story". According to the "story" :"The only problem v. Frisch's DL hypothesis ever had was a life-long grudge that Wenner has held against v. Frisch." The cause for that "grudge" was that v. Frisch deliberately delayed publication of Wenner's study on the sound produced by dancing foragers (which Wenner published in 1962), in order to give his own student, Harald Esch the opportunity to gain priority by publishing a study on the same subject first (in 1961). 

I couldn't stop laughing when I read that "grudge story". I advised the person who had brought the "story" to my attention, that the DL hypothesis had a few other "minor" problems, including having been stillborn, more than 20 years before its inception, thanks to v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment.

Eventually it turned out that v. Frisch apparently served as an anonymous referee on the article submitted by Wenner, and published in 1962. V. Frisch could not, however, have helped Esch gain priority, because a brief report on Wenner's study, including tests & results, had already been published in the US in 1959.

Moreover, until very recently Wenner had no idea that v. Frisch was in any way involved in Wenner's 1962 publication. Wenner could not, therefore, have held any "life-long" grudge against v. Frisch, on account of an issue Wenner knew nothing about.

My message was not posted, on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the present forum. I may be wasting my time, rewriting an even shorter version, and trying to send it again.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Moreover, until very recently Wenner had no idea that v. Frisch was in any way involved in Wenner's 1962 publication.

In what sense was he involved?

>My message was not posted, on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the present forum.

Well here in the Bee Forum, anything bee-related is ok. The Chat Forum where the discussion had been held in the past was deemed an "innappropriate" place for that type of discussion. That's not the only thing that was inappropriate about it!

There's 2 things that get Forum Administrator's undies in a bunch, not necessarily in this order:

1) Off-Topic postings- either off-topic for the forum, or off-topic for the thread underway i.e., talking about candle making in the Queen Breeding forum or talking about hive construction in a thread about mite treatments. However, a certain amount of "wandering" in a thread is tolerated and expected.

2) Rude and insulting behavior. Personal attacks. Name calling. Arguments and heated discussions are one thing. Name calling is quite another. It's all fun and games till somebody puts an eye out









The original "DL Controversy" thread reminded me of a 3 Stooges episode where a high-society tea party turned into a pie-throwing free-for-all. Disgraceful









So, if we keep it in the right forum, keep it civil, and try not to get too far off topic, we'll pretty much stay out of trouble. Maybe.

The original thread in all it's glory is now in the Bee Forum, as is this one, where they belong:

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004645

It can be resumed, or not. I for one would like to hear more about the DL controversy. I came across a paper the other day, recent I believe, involving attaching tiny radar transponders to bees and tracking their flight paths after being released. I'll see if I can find it again.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Ah- here it is. There are a number of news stories about this, but only this page has a particular graphic showing flight paths of bees, which I found particularly interesting:

http://acp.eugraph.com/news/news05/riley.html

The flight paths of bees that witnessed a waggle dance and released from the hive trend toward the food source.

The flight paths of bees that witnessed the same waggle dance but were released at other points away from the hive showed similar flight paths (direction and distance) of the bees leaving the hive, but of course, there was no food source where they ended up. Wouldn't this tend to rule out the "odor alone" argument, at least in some cases? If they were navigating by odor (in this case), why didn't they find the food source?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Fergusson, Hi,

Re:"In what way was he involved?" 

I suppose you know very little about science. You , thus, did not understand what I said about v. Frisch having apparently served as an anonymous referee on the article Wenner's article that was eventually published in Anim. Behav. in 1962. Serious scientific journals do not accept for publication any submitted article, without first sending the article to several anonymous experts ("referees") for their evaluation (known as "peer reviews"). If a referee delays submitting his review, for whatever reason, this will delay publication of the article, even if all the referees end up recommending that it be published.

The radar-tracking study to which you refer concerns the publication by Riley et al. in Nature (of May, 12, 2005). Everyone knew that the publication was due, because an Abstract claiming that the authors "achieved for the first time a direct experimental confirmation of the DL hypothesis", was posted on the Internet at least a year and a half prior to publication. The study was also touted all over the popular scientific media immediately after publication. DL opponents began to deal with the study as soon as it was published. Wenner debunked the authors' claims on BeeSource P.O.V.

I debunked the authors' conclusions in e-mail exchanges with Wenner, e-mail exchanges with all the 5 authors of the study, in posts on Scifraud, Bee-L, the Irishbeekeeping site, BeeSource P.O.V., and in one of my 6 posts on the animal-behaviour list, and the COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY list of TCU. I think I dealt with that particular study in the 5th, or 6th post. I advised members of the Chatroom how to access those posts.

Very briefly, the authors did their best to prevent the food, feeder, feeder-stand, and feeder-site from becoming contaminated with any environmental odors; which is why, among others, they used only unscented food. They claim that honeybee-recruits find unscented sources even in nature, even by their own results. (As I found out from one of the authors, the only 2 tracked bees that "landed at the feeder", according to the published report, arrived there on their own, without any upwind zigzag, and landed only on the feeder-stand, but never found the food, nor the feeder.) However, as soon as you introduce the use of scented food, you obtain the upwind zigzag through which recruits invariably arrive at sources of attractive odors from as far as the bees can only bee spotted by observers at the sources with the naked eye, i.e. from a distance of at least 10 m. away. This typical manner of arrival alone suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis, because, if recruits use DL information, they are expected to often arrive from the direction of the hive, at points that are far closer than 10 m. away from the sources (and especially from the source that serves as foragers'-feeder), by use of that information alone. When such a point happens to be within the odor-plume from any source, recruits are then expected to arrive at the source through an upwind zigzag that is far shorter than 10 m. But this expectation has never materialized, in observations on thousands of new-arrivals.

Logically speaking, what this means is that, the radar-team discovered that honeybees use a DL that cannot exist in the real world; which means that it cannot exist at all. They could not, of course, have discovered that honeybees use a non-existent DL; which leaves only the other alternative, i.e. that there is something wrong with the study. What it might be, I do not know.

I can point out to enough problems that raise doubts that the radar-tracked bees were indeed regular-recruits. Here, however, I shall note only one problem: According to the DL hypothesis if recruits do not find attractive odors after using the spatial information. In the radar-tracking study, however, many of the tracked bees did not search for attractive odors at all, but turned around and flew back to the hive. This would be a serious problem for the DL hypothesis, because when recruits attend round dances, none of them can find anything without searching for attractive odors starting at the hive.

I noted that I have good reasons to doubt that the authors indeed succeeded in preventing all odor-contamination. To determine that, I need an answer to the question whether un-tracked new bees that found the feeder-site on their own also arrived there without any upwind zigzag. But, for some reason, I am unable to obtain an answer to this very simple question.

Incidentally, one staunch DL supporter, who participated in some of the discussions on that study, but not in the study itself, insists that the only way odor-effects; and which is pure nonsense. If honeybee-recruits use a DL, adding scent to the food can in no way prevent the bees from using their DL.

That radar-tracking study is just another example out of very many, where the "peer review" process has been a disaster, because it is obvious that the editors did not include even one single DL opponent among the referees they chose.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

"I suppose you know very little about science."

I just thought that I'd give Ruth Rosin a chance to insult me, too. Shouldn't we all have the pleasure?

Ms. Rosin, Are you this unkind and undiplomatic in your face to face encounters with your fellow humans? Or is this just something special that you do for those that you encounter on line?

It seems to me that George asked you a sincere and unchallenging question and you came back at him with an insult.

I certainly could be misinterperating what you said and what your intent was. I do have trouble reading between the lines in e-communication. So, maybe you can set me straight.

By the way. Is "Prickly pear" your chosen nick name or what others call you.

"Sincerely",


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> I suppose you know very little about science.


Well, I did take 6 years of science in high school, my father was a scientist (physicist) and I was raised in a home that encouraged scientific enquiry via the scientific method. I however never did go on to attend college. In my professional career I was not nor am I now a "scientist" so you are correct in one sense- I know very little about the formal practice of science as it exists in the halls, classrooms, laboratories, and bathrooms of academia. I do know of and understand the concept of "peer review". Please don't assume my questions are a result of stupidity. I may be dumb but I'm not stupid.



> You , thus, did not understand what I said about v. Frisch having apparently served as an anonymous referee on the article Wenner's article that was eventually published in Anim. Behav. in 1962.


More likely Ruth, I failed to pick up on that particular detail. Thanks for taking the time to explain it and the manner in which v. Frisch might or might not have affected the timing of the publication of Wenner's paper. Sorry you had to do it twice. I got it now.



> Very briefly, the authors did their best to prevent the food, feeder, feeder-stand, and feeder-site from becoming contaminated with any environmental odors


Well, doing this makes sense from an experimental perspective, no? Especially if you're trying to eliminate odor as a factor in the bees finding the food source?



> However, as soon as you introduce the use of scented food, you obtain the upwind zigzag through which recruits invariably arrive at sources of attractive odors


I suppose one difficulty is determining if bees doing the zigzag thing actually ever witnessed the dancing and if the bees that did witness the dance did the zigzag thing or instead made a beeline for the feeder?

One thing that is clear from the radar study: bees left the various release points and flew on similar courses regardless of whether they were actually heading for a feeder or just thought there was a feeder. Why should not I, an untrained, largely ignorant layperson, draw the obvious conclusions from this data?

I am not privy to the details of the experiment, I only have access to the boiled down conclusions fed to the ininformed ignorant masses- one of the "problems" if you ask me, with the current scientist mindset: hold your cards close, share only with your conspirators, and keep the consuming public largely in the dark.

George-


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Don't poke the lion now, George.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I just thought that I'd give Ruth Rosin a chance to insult me, too.

With an overture like that Mark, you'll get what you ask for









For what it's worth, I didn't find her comment to me particularly insulting- somewhat inflamatory perhaps.. presumptuous maybe.. OK, so it was a little bit insulting. I wasn't insulted. She actually said "Hi" to me first







The fact is, I'm NOT a scientist and don't want to be a scientist, but I would play one on TV.

Again for what it's worth, I asked a question and I got an answer. I like that.

>Don't poke the lion now, George.

Always, at every opportunity, with a sharp stick









George-


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

> Ms. Rosin, Are you this unkind and undiplomatic in your face to face encounters with your fellow humans? Or is this just something special that you do for those that you encounter on line?


She wasn't being unkind. George didn't even do her the common courtesy of reading her post carefully before asking a rather dumb question. If you want people with valuable knowledge to post here you shouldn't lecture them on etiquette. Especially people like you, Mark, who admit to not reading with much understanding.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>George didn't even do her the common courtesy of reading her post carefully before asking a rather dumb question.

Zing!

Nice one Tim! So far I think you're in the lead here. You insult me in the third person over a polite if stupid exchange that I had with Ruth (for which I already apologized) in an overtly insulting harrangue directed towards Mark over his etiquette and reading comprehension skills. Beautiful!

Thanks for contributing to the substance of this thread!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"She wasn't being unkind."

"If you want people with valuable knowledge to post here you shouldn't lecture them on etiquette."

You should if they are routinely rude. I don't give a whit how smart or well trained someone is.
If you cannot say something nice . . . 


Keith

George - you must be a carpenter!

[ February 12, 2006, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

It seems apparrent most of bee behavior is governed by pheremones and scents so a bee brain structure should reflect that. As I stated in an earlier post on a thread about this topic the bees would have to have the ability to have a "scent record" which would be learned. (in a similar fashion to dogs who record and recall all scents encountered). It would seem simple science to determine whether honey bees have the capacity to do this on a much smaller scale. Although it would not prove the odor theory it could add credence. If in fact bees could not have this capacity then it may disprove the theory. What research and results have been forwarded in this area?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi, to all members who consider me unkind, insulting, etc.

I chose the nickname "Prickly pear", because I have been, for very many years, "a thorn in the side" of DL supporters, as well as various other scientists who delude themselves (and then editors of serious scientific journals & their referees, most of the rest of the scientific community, and the general public) into into believing they had experimentally confirmed that various other animals have various incredible, genetically predetermined ("instinctive") capabilities, such as the claim that various subhumans use a magnetic compass (the MC hypothesis.

I also chose the nickname "Prickly pear", because I am a native Israeli, and the Arabic word for prickly pear, which some of you might have heard, i.e. "Sabra", has been used for very many years as a nickname for native Israelis. The nickname was apparently invented by those who concluded that, like the prickly pear, native Israelis are "pests, that are very difficult to get rid of" (as anyone who knows the plant will attest), and that they are "rough and full of thorns on the outside, but soft and sweet inside" (as anyone who has ever tested the fruit of the prickly pear, would attest).

Other than that, I am a scientist, trained in what scientists must be trained to do first and foremost, i.e. think very clearly, carefully, and rigorously. This does not mean that all scientists do that all the time. As a staunch DL opponent, I can often discover where staunch supporters have failed to use fully rigorous thinking, and point their errors up to them. (This, incidentally, has become very difficult to do, when scientific journals have almost entirely banned DL opponents. The editors of such journals just can't believe that the Nobel Committee could have made an egregious error!)

I am, however, not an educator. I don't know how to explain complex scientific issues to persons who are not trained in science, and I don't have the patience to even try to do it, when I often cannot even understand why they did not understand what I had already explained repeatedly before, or when I catch those who are trained in science, dabbling in "pathological science" (coming up with preposterously faulty arguments, or inventing experiments that never existed).

I was kind enough to, again, explain to Fergusson how v. Frisch might have become involved in a publication of a study by Wenner, only because I believed the "poor guy" didn't know anything about "peer reviews". Had I known that, as Fergusson has by now disclosed, he knew what "peer reviews" were, I might very well have exploded, instead of patiently answering his question yet again.

My point in bringing up that issue, however, was not at all to conjecture over whether v. Frisch did, or did not, deliberately cause a delay in the publication of Wenner's study. My point was, instead, to demonstrate the hilarious pretexts to which staunch DL supporters resort, in order to delude themselves, and others, into believing that v. Frisch's DL hypothesis never had any problems (when the hypothesis has, in fact, had nothing but very serious problems), and that Wenner's opposition to that hypothesis, is not based on any scientific grounds, but only on an old, emotional grudge; which Wenner never even had, and never could have had.

What staunch DL supporters have done here is just one symptom of "very sick science". DL supporters refuse to "see" that which DL opponents have repeatedly shoved right in front of their eyes, and they manage to delude themselves into believing they do not even need to look at it.

How is that? First, they correctly conclude that scientists must deal with scientific arguments, but ignore arguments that are based on emotions, instead of science. Then, they delude themselves into believing they are serious scientists, and that the only problem they face here is an emotional problem; which they are required to ignore.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Joel,

Sorry, but it neither seems, nor is it correct, that most of honeybee-behavior is governed by pheromone and scents. Their behavior is affected by all their senses. (They wouldn't even have all their senses, if they didn't need them.)

It is well-known that honeybees can learn to recognize and remember odors, colors, shapes, etc. Their whole learning process is, however, qualitatively different, and simpler in insects, than it is in dogs, and qualitatively different and simpler in dogs, than it is in humans. (This is a complex issue, which concerns the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science. And I will not get involved in it here.)

There is, however, no question that honeybees can learn, and remember odors. This is proved, among others, by the finding in v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment, that recruits found only dishes with the foragers' food-odor, but none of the dishes with a different food-odor. It was proved also long before that, when v. Frisch tested the sensitivity of honeybees to odors. Never mind that he arrived at a totally erroneous conclusion. But he started his tests by training honeybee-foragers to forage on dishes of sugar-water with a specific odor. The bees would not have been able to do that, unless they learned to recognize and remember that specific odor.

It has been known for very long that insects in general can learn and remember odors, and that flying insects in general can find sources of attractive odors in the field, by use of odor alone all along, and that includes solitary flying insects, that have no one to provide them with any information about the location of any food. Not only that, but v. Frisch's DL hypothesis includes the use of odors, which recruits remember after having learned to recognize the odors. According to the DL hypothesis, recruits first use the spatial-information contained in foragers'-dances, but if such use does not get them to a point where they can sense the odors they had learned to recognize (by receiving food with such odors from the dancing foragers), they then, search for attractive odors. V. Frisch claimed, however, that they then need to search for attractive odors only nearby, and that this search for odors leads them to find sources of attractive odors only within a relatively short distance of the point where they started the search (like 100 m. from the hive for Austrian honeybees, when they attend round dances, and must (even according to the DL hypothesis), search for attractive odors, starting at the hive. 

The whole idea that by searching for attractive odors within a relatively short range, around a starting point recruits will find sources of attractive odors only within a short range of that starting point, forms an integral part of the DL hypothesis. But this whole idea is in error, based on v. Frisch's very early erroneous conclusion that honeybees have a very poor, human like sensitivity to odors. V. Frisch took it for granted that presumed use of the spatial information contained in dances, only serves to aid recruits in finding attractive odors. He, therefore, also took it for granted that whenever they sense attractive odors, they leave whatever else they are doing (such as using the spatial information, if they are in the midst of doing that), and respond to the odors. Now, suppose, as v. Frisch claimed< that they use the spatial information all the way through, sense no attractive odors, and, then, search for attractive odors within a short range of the point they reached by use of the spatial information alone. If they have a very poor sensitivity to odors, they would never be able to sense attractive odors from sources that are outside that range, unless the sources are still very close to the boundary of that range. However, since honeybees are exceptionally highly sensitive to odors, even if they were capable of conducting an odor-search that would be restricted within a specific short range of the starting point, there is nothing to prevent them from sensing wind-borne attractive odors from sources that are hundred of meters away from the boundaries of that range. According to v. Frisch, they must then, respond to those odors; which would lead them to find sources of attractive odors also very far away from the boundaries of that range.

DL opponents claim that honeybee-recruits do not use any spatial information from foragers'-dances, but only odor alone all along. I presented in this forum, more than enough experimental evidence to justify that claim. You apparently understood none of that evidence. Otherwise, I cannot explain to myself why you are still concerned with means to test whether honeybee-recruits do, or do not use spatial information about the location of the foragers' food-site, that is contained in foragers'-dances.

The problem had been repeatedly fully adequately solved long ago, starting with the evidence v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, which led him to fully justifiably conclude that honeybee-recruits use no information about the location of any food.

I have obviously been unable to make you understand that no one needs to try to again solve this long solved problem, any more that it is necessary to try and again solve the long solved problem whether the earth is, or is not flat. I shall not try again to make you understand that much!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Whoa Tim. I've been burned.

Did I say that i didn't read with much understanding? Maybe I wrote that I often don't understand everything, but did I don't read with understanding? And whatb are you doing wasting your time reading my posts anyway?
















Here's one thing that I will say, over and over. There are NO dumb questions. There are NO dumb questions. 

There certainly are ignorantly phrased questions, but anyone who asks a sincere question deserves the respect of the person being questioned. Because the person asking the question is smart enough to know that they don't know the answer to the question that they are trying to get the answer to.

[ February 12, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: sqkcrk ]


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I'm going to bow out of this thread, now that I have given my pound and a half of flesh. I have been abused by better people who have abused me here. And yes, I know that I invited "cactus fruit" to do so. But I didn't know that TV was invited too. How short sighted of me.

BOYCOTT THIS THREAD. BOYCOTT THIS THREAD. BOYCOTT THIS THREAD. BOYCOTT THIS THREAD.


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

"But I didn't know that TV was invited too."

Why do I need an invite from an undereducated newbie to the board? Ruth is a top researcher, has much to teach anyone willing to listen and doesn't need to explain her way of writing to you. Sabra and it's English equivalent is know to most well read people in any event. (Ruth, when you write in Spanish do you use the sig "Tuna" ? 

"There are NO dumb questions. There are NO dumb questions."

There are an infinite amount of dumb questions.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I can't resist. Tim, you seem to have a poor attitude about your fellow man. Why are you so angry and pessemistic?

How much of an education do you need to ask questions on this "board"? I don't remember reading about any entry requirments, do you?

A coorse, bein' just a dumb old hippy muther from Muriland, how kan ewe expect me to cumunikate my kwestiuns intelligently 2 sum 1 whoo considers others dumb. Besides, isn't dumb another word for silent?

Back to my Boycott


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I have read most of the DL thread. Four pages were enough. And of course this one. I am completely shocked at the denegrading, pompous, attacking, negative, self-serving, etc, etc, in the discussion at hand.

I am surprised at the level of non-productive and almost childish posts. I remember a time when I had my fingers slapped for asking someone "Don't get your panties in a bunch".

Thanks to rosinbio, I now have plenty of leverage or at least have been shown how far I can go in disrepecting and belittling others. I doubt I will. I have been trying to do better. But it seems of late, the bar has not only been lowered, but it seems to have dissappeared. One only needs to read the "DL" thread to understand.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{I have obviously been unable to make you understand that no one needs to try to again solve this long solved problem,}

Keep in mind most of here are do not participate in scientific theory on a daily basis and are trying to get a basic understanding of where the differences in the positions lay.

Thanks for the reply. I'll mull it over.


----------



## Carolina-Family-Farm (Aug 2, 2005)

Prickly pear is a cactus that people eat????

I've been hungry a few times but you can bank I'll be on the verge of starvation and food stamps before I start eating cactus ........lol

This thread is a shocker and I almost agree with BjornBee, however it is a good test to see how thick your skin is and how much ability you have to just walk away from this to more important things .........................smile


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To George Fergusson,

There are a few studies that used individually marked potential-recruits, e.g. the study by Gould wt Al. published in Science (in 1970). In that study all new-arrivals were bees actually observed to have attended a dance. And they could never arrive again, because once they arrived, they were captured and removed. 

There has, however, been very strong circumstantial evidence, long before that, that new-arrivals are dance-attendants. For instance, v. Frisch found out very early, that if he trained foragers to a feeder with a scented sugar-solution of high sugar-concentration, the foragers soon began to often dance in the hive, and new bees eventually began to arrive at the feeder. When he reduced the concentration of sugar in the solution, the foragers stopped dancing. (apparently, the poor quality of the food, did not attract potential dance-attendants to start chasing after such foragers; which resulted in no dancing.)A few of the bees that apparently left the hive before dancing stopped, might still find the feeder. But the arrival of new bees there soon stopped altogether. In other words, there are no new-arrivals with dancing foragers; which very strongly suggests that new-arrivals are dance-attendants.

Re-recruited foragers are a different matter. They know what their familiar feeder and its stand look like; they know where it is. And they know how to get there. If their feeder is removed, they continue to fly to their familiar site, but their flights to that site gradually become rare, and far between, until the bees practically stop flying there altogether, and stay in the hive. If a successful foragers returns to the hive carrying food with the familiar food-odor of the "laid off" foragers, most of them resume flights to their familiar site. They may attend the dance of that forager, but they still fly to their own familiar site, even if the forager came from a totally different site, and, naturally indicates, that totally different site in its dance. Obviously, the "laid off" foragers do not use any DL information in the dance they attended. Moreover, they have been found to resume flight to their familiar site, even by merely sensing their familiar food-odor, when it is dripped into the hive. However, if they are repeatedly re-recruited to their familiar site, but find no feeder there, they eventually start searching for it, and can arrive at other identical feeders on identical stands. But they arrive at such other sites without any upwind zigzag, because they are attracted to the feeder and its stand by sight, since the feeder and its stand look like their familiar feeder.

Such bees, would then be new-arrivals at such other sites, who might have attended dances of foragers carrying food with their familiar food-odor, but, arrived without any upwind zigzag, and without using any spatial information from the dances they attended. Such bees, however, do not even exist in most studies. 

As for food-scouts, who find new species of food-bearing flowers, no one knows exactly, what in their previous experience, causes such bees to be attracted to flowers of the flowers of the new species. It is, however, known that food-scouts become active when the colony needs food, and no foragers bring food into the hive.

Scientists studying honeybee-recruitment have, therefore, taken it for granted, that in tests where no re-recruited trained foragers exist, and active foragers bringing in food from the training feeder, do exist, all new-arrivals must be new bees that attended dances, i.e. regular recruits.

Such regular recruits never arrive at man-made small sources of attractive odors, without an upwind zigzag from as far as they can only be spotted by observers at the sources, with the naked eye, i.e. from points that are downwind of the source of attractive odors, and at least least 10 m. away from the source of attractive odors. Such new bees invariably arrive from a downwind direction, totally irrespective of the direction of the hive. Thus, what you believe still needs to be verified, had already been verified long ago.

As for the radar-tracking study published in Nature (of May, 12, 2005), I strongly suspect that they were re-recruited trained foragers, and not regular recruits, in spite of the fact that the authors clearly state that they were bees with number-tags, and a fully known [previous history, that could not have been anything other than regular recruits.

Why do I suspect that? 

First, they all(including the transported bees), behaved as one would expect them to behave, if they were re-recruited trained foragers, who used distant landmarks outside the very large experimental area), in tests where the feeder-stand was contaminated by environmental odors (from wind-borne tiny bits & pieces of mowed grass, in an environment where such grass might not have dried enough to lose all odor-traces for honeybees with their exceptionally high sensitivity to odors), and where the feeder did not have enough time to become so contaminated, because the feeder (but not its stand), was often replaced by a new, clean feeder with fresh food). As for the tracked transported bees: When re-recruited trained foragers that use distant landmarks outside the very large experimental area, are transported only a short distance relative to the distance of those landmarks, they fly about the same distance, in the same direction as before, by merely using the same distant landmarks.

Second, the only two tracked bees that "landed at the feeder",arrived there on their own, without any upwind zigzag, and actually landed on the feeder-stand (a chair), but never found the food, nor the feeder. RE-recruited trained foragers would behave like that (in the scenario I described), but regular recruits would never behave like that. Regular recruits have no idea what the foragers' food-site looks like, and they would not land on a chair that they do not recognize visually, based on previous experience. One of the authors suggested that they landed on the chair, because they became exhausted, and the chair was the object that stood out in their environment. This is pure non-sense. When bees become too exhausted to continue flying, they do not need a "chair to sit on". They can very well land anywhere on the ground. In his 1967 book v. Frisch describes bees that landed on the ground, apparently too exhausted to continue flying, and took off again, after he fed them a drop of honey. Apart from that none of the other tracked bees (whether transported, or not), never became exhausted after presumably using the spatial information from the dances, to land anywhere. Instead, they either turned around and flew back to the hive, or started searching. Another DL supporter, trying to defend the conclusions of the authors of that study, suggested that those two bees landed on the chair by accident. This is another piece of nonsense. Bees can land on anything. But none of the other tracked bees landed anywhere (by accident, or otherwise), before turning around and flying back to the hive, or starting to search.

3. If those two exceptional bees were regular-recruits, regular recruits should often behave the same way, under the effect of similar wind-conditions, i.e. arrive at the feeder, (or at least very close to the feeder), on their own, without any upwind zigzag, even when the food is scented. (Wind conditions were such that the wind had to carry odors from the food in such a direction that recruits, presumably using the spatial information, were not expected to even sense the odors of the food before getting at least very close to the feeder, even if the food would have been scented. It, therefore, should have made no difference regarding where recruits were expected to arrive by use of the spatial information alone, whether the food was scented , or not.) Contrary to the expectations, regular recruits, tested with scented food, however, never behave as those two special bees did.

According to v. Frisch's DL hypothesis when recruits search for attractive odors after presumed use of the spatial information, they are expected to do so by performing a circular search that gradually expands around the point reached by use of the spatial information alone. The few details obtained through radar-tracking about the tracked bees that did search, do not in any way fit the expected expanding circular search.

The main problem with the authors' conclusions is a point I had already stressed before. Their interpretations of their data lead to the conclusion that they discovered that honeybees use a non-existent DL.

Another problem with the study (and I am not sure whether I had already mentioned it on this forum before), is that the authors seriously accept the conclusions Gould drew from his 1975 study (published in Science, of 1975). Gould, claimed, however, to have experimentally confirmed use of DL information only under v. Frisch's conditions. This means that the authors should have tested the DL hypothesis specifically under v. Frisch's conditions. This, however, they did not, and could not do, because the way Gould used v. Frisch's conditions required, among others, switching from one scent used for training the foragers, to another scent used for actual tests. The authors, however, deliberately avoided using any scented food. 

In short, what might seem perfectly fine to a non-scientist like you, and seemed perfectly fine even to the referees who recommended that the study be published, looks terribly bad after being placed under the scrutinizing gaze of staunch DL opponents; who were never consulted prior to publication.

There is nothing surprising about that. Galileo had already stated in writing, several hundred years ago, that the discrediting of a theory (actually what we would today call" a hypothesis), should not be left to those willing to accept it, but to those who refuse to do so.

In order to determine with certainty whether the feeder-stand was, or was not contaminated by environmental odors, I need to know whether un-tracked new bees that arrived at the feeder-site on their own, did so with, or without, an upwind zigzag. For some reason I cannot get the answer to that question. 

You want to try to get the answer? I will gladly provide you with Greggers' e-mail address, so that you could ask him the question.

As for "conspiracies" and "keeping the consuming public in the dark", there is no doubt in my mind that the authors of that radar-tracking study innocently believed they had indeed accomplished that which they claimed to have accomplished. What they believe today, after i gave them some of my "Prickly pear" treatment, I can not say.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Carolina-Family -Farm,

You bet the prickly pear fruit is edible, and deliciously wonderful too! The fruit we eat is bright orange inside, with black seeds, and very sweet. You just eat it, seeds and all. On rare occasions I have seen it being sold in supermarkets in NYC, where it is deep red inside, but tastes the same as our orange kind. 

You aught to try it when you have a chance. I assure you, you won't be lolling anymore! If it grows wild where you live, you can pick up your own. But use rubber gloves, and roll the fruit in sand, to get rid of most of the tiny yellow thorns, before you cut it open and peel off the green cover.

We have a different kind which is also deep red inside, but it is slightly sour, and used only to make very tasty fruit-compote.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"On rare occasions I have seen it being sold in supermarkets in NYC"

It is gradually becoming more popualr, and more available. More often than not the local supermarkets here have them.

Ruth is 100% correct, they are sweet and refreshing. Try 'em, you will like 'em

Some folks eat the pads though, and claim that they are like green beans. I think they taste like grass.

Keith


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

Some of my latest posts seem to have disappeared. But it does not matter. 

I think I have said enough about my topic for those who were interested, and certainly more than enough for those who were not interested at all. 

So, I shall say no more.

I'd only like to assure the Carolina-Family-Farm that the prickly pear indeed has edible, delicious fruit!


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

kg benson sezs:
Some folks eat the pads though, and claim that they are like green beans. I think they taste like grass.

tecumseh replies:
these are called no-pal-es (sp???) and are the product of a different cactus (thornless) I suspect??? they are commonly used in breakfast dishes (my favorite) although some folks tell me they boil them and are a bit like okra (tecumseh won't go there).


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Tecumsek sez:"and are the product of a different cactus (thornless) I suspect"

The spineless ones are relatively new on the market (I *think* they are just a variety and not a totally separate species), the spined ones are eaten, the spines are scraped or burned off. Okra seems as good an analogy as any other. I am not an Okra fan either.

I feed the pads to my tortoises,

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

OK, I realize Ruth said she wouldn't post any more information here, and I realize this discussion is straying pretty far from the original topic of this thread, but the original thread seems to have died for lack of additional posts, and I still have questions about this whole DL controversy.

I'd really like to know what sort of evidence should be required to establish or reject the possibility that honey bees use a dance language, both in the minds of supporters and opponents of a "dance language." Tim Vaughn referred to Ruth as a "top researcher" in the field, and I'd be especially interested in your ideas, Ruth.

Here's what I'd like to see:

Propose an experimental design to test the dance language hypothesis, a design that would truly test the dance language as opposed to any other methods. Set up the experiment so the null hypothesis is "Honey bees do not use a dance language," and the alternate hypothesis is "Honey bees use some form of a dance language." Remember, we're trying to reject the null the hypothesis, so we should either end up rejecting the null hypothesis or failing to reject the null hypothesis. "Searching by odor" is NOT the null hypothesis.

Really, if we want to be critical of the hypothesis (both supporters and opponents), we need to perfect an experimental design. I've given it some thought; now I'd especially value the insights of others, such as Ruth, since some of you have been critical of previous experiments. How should such an experiment be created to solidly disprove (or fail to disprove) a dance language hypothesis? What factors must be addressed in the design of the experiment to offer convincing evidence?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Prickly Pear,

>I am, however, not an educator. I don't know how to explain complex scientific issues to persons who are not trained in science, and I don't have the patience to even try to do it...

That much is clear.

It does, however, beg the question of your motivation in posting here in the first place. 

Are you trying to make a reputation for yourself? If so, you have succeeded. Possibly not the reputation you had in mind, but at least you will be remembered.

Most of us here are beekeepers rather than scientists, so if you want to make yourself understood and not rub folk up the wrong way, may I suggest you come down off your high horse for long enough to learn how to communicate with us. Mostly we are not stupid and are quite willing to listen to anyone who has something to say about bees. 

And do bear in mind that, between us, we have several centuries of practical knowledge, observation and experience of bees, while you apparently have only a theory - or, rather and anti-theory, as I have not yet heard your explanation of why bees dance, if not to tell each other how to find food.

Or - as you perhaps have not observed it - you think that bees cannot dance, as this would not fit with your ideas?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I vote to hear more about Keith's tortoises...


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Buckeye,

It might not have occurred to you that as a responsible & committed scientist, I post my material where ever I can reach an audience that ought to know better.

I post where ever I can reach people who have been misguided by staunch DL supporters (who are themselves supported by the scientific establishment, and by the weight of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology), into believing that the honeybee DL controversy had long been fully adequately resolved in their favor (which never happened); or that there never was any scientific cause to even question the DL hypothesis (as the grudge story I had reported here, suffices to show).

I don't know where you got the idea that I consider beekeepers stupid; which I never even remotely suggested. My own Dad was an amateur beekeeper, and as a result I have myself had experience in beekeeping, as a kid.

What I can not take is being asked, over & over again, questions I had already repeatedly answered in this forum before.

I do not question that honeybees dance; nor that scientists can obtain from the dances distance & direction information about the approximate site of the foragers' food-source (provided they rely on an ; nor that honeybees do not engage in any experimental research.

The existence of the dances, and their information-content, does not in any way interfere with my & use the spatial information that scientists are able to obtain from the dances. I believe I had already posted in the Chatroom a copy of my publication in ABJ of the year 2000 (140(2), Feb. p. 98), that explains what causes the dancing, and why the existence of the dance, in no way requires the existence of a honeybee DL, which utilizes the spatial information contained in the dances.

The DL controversy concerns the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science. It was no accident that the two co-founders of a general approach to the study of behavior, shared v. Frisch's 1973 Nobel Prize. The belief that the existence of an "instinctive", genetically predetermined ability of honeybees to use a DL, which utilizes the spatial information contained in the dances, provided European Ethology (which is based on the belief in the existence of instincts, its most spectacular validation. I shall not, however, get into the general controversy over the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science, in this forum.

I had already repeatedly pointed out in this forum, that the question whether honeybees do, or do not use spatial information contained in dances, had long been fully adequately, and repeatedly, solved in the negative.

The question was fully adequately resolved by v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment (published in an extensive summary in 1923), some 20 years before the inception of his sensational DL hypothesis. That study led him to fully justifiably conclude that HONEYBEE-RECRUITS USE ODOR ALONE, AND NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATION OF ANY FOOD. (At the time he had trained foragers only to a feeder near the hive, and did not even know that foragers feeding on a substitute of nectar can perform round dances, or waggle-dances, depending on the distance of their feeder from the hive. He believed that waggle-dances are performed only by pollen gatherers. However, his later discovery that the type of dance does not depend on the type of food, but on the distance of the food from the hive, and that waggle-dance contain spatial information about the location of the foragers' food-source, can in no way invalidate his original, fully justified conclusion that recruits use NO information about the location of any food.

The question was again solved in the negative, in the first experimental studies, published in Science of 1967 (Johnson; Wenner), which launched the opposition to the DL hypothesis to the DL hypothesis. The only claims for an experimental confirmation of the existence of a DL, that were available at that time, and most later claims, were based on the interpretations of data regarding distributions of new-arrivals among various small, man-made sources of attractive odors, scattered in the field. Wenner's team discovered, however, that such distributions of new-arrivals cannot support any claim for use of DL information, because they are totally independent of DL information.

The problem was, yet again, solved in the negative, by the typical upwind zigzag through which new-arrivals invariably arrive at such man-made sources in the field (as observed by observers with the naked eye, at the sources). Recruits invariably arrive through an upwind zigzag, but they never arrive through an upwind zigzag that is shorter than the distance where they can first be spotted, i.e. shorter than a distance of 10 m. away. This point had already been briefly raised by Wenner in print in 1974, i.e. more than 30 years ago.

Nonetheless, I am still being asked by members of this forum to design an experiment that would adequately solve the problem whether honeybee-recruits do, or do not use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances.

There are many other devastating arguments against the DL hypothesis, and nothing to be said for that hypothesis. But, enough is enough!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

See my just posted response to Buckeye.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

So long as nobody proposes that they do any kind of dance...


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

[my last post above was about tortoises, BTW]

OK guys, I can here you snickering out there. I know, I should have just kept my snout out of the trough.  

buckbee, aka buckeye


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Prickly Pear,

>
I do not question that honeybees dance; nor that scientists can obtain from the dances distance & direction information about the approximate site of the foragers' food-source (provided they rely on an ; nor that honeybees do not engage in any experimental research.

Could you possibly re-state the above as an English sentence, so I can formulate a cogent response to it?

Thanks 
BUCKBEE


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To tecumseh & kgbenson,

Re edible prickly pear. The plant certainly bears delicious fruit. Vendors used to sell it all over the beach in Tel-Aviv, when I was a kid! 

As for the pads, in Israel they have very long, thick thorns, and the only ones who eat them, thorns and all are camels. I've seen the pads (without thorns),being sold in Hispanic supermarkets in NYC. I have also found the pads (with thorns possibly removed), cut into thin stripes, and perhaps pickled (I just can't remember), sold in cans in my own supermarket, which does not cater specifically to Hispanics. I don't remember where the staple was produced. But I even tried some, out of curiosity. The food was not very tasteful to me, and rather unappetizing, because it is very slimy. (I guess, this is where the comparison to okra came from.)

Even though the prickly pear provided a nickname for native Israelis, it is not native to that part of the world at all. I think ours were originally imported from Australia long before I was born. Prickly pear bushes, or thorny acacias are used all over the Middle-East as natural fences around plantations. In Australia the prickly pear is a very serious agricultural-pest, because it spreads over huge tracts of land. It makes the land impenetrable, and is very difficult to eradicate. But Australians at least know the fruit is edible, and eat it with relish.

I have seen prickly pear bushes growing wild in southern states in the US, where they might be native. I urged those who find them in the wild to try the fruit. But be very careful of the tiny yellow thorns on the fruit. They are very painful. I believe they are also barbed. I know that once they get into your skin you can't pull them out, and have to wait for weeks for your skin to expel them.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

To Ruth,

I already know you'll insist that you've already responded to these type of comments/questions, but I'll proceed anyway.

One big contradiction that I see lies in your repeated statement:

"HONEYBEE-RECRUITS USE ODOR ALONE, AND NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATION OF ANY FOOD."

Yet, even most opponents of a dance language use a "spatial memory," if you will, as an argument against a dance language. These opponents claim that bees remember locations where they've previously found food (such as feeding stations) and return at later times. To my understanding, recalling routes to return to sources of food is still using "information about the location of...food." It's just not communication between two organisms.

Then, I still have a problem with using the "odor hypothesis" as the null hypothesis in a test of a "dance language hypothesis." To my way of thinking, a test of the dance language (like I said earlier) needs to start with a null hypothesis such as, "Honey bees do not use a dance language," and an alternate hypothesis of, "Honey bees use a dance language." Otherwise, we simply confuse the issue.

With previous experiments, you've suggested some important errors in eliminating other sources of behavior or other methods of communication. You keep pointing out how others have failed to eliminate effects of odor-searching behaviors, or other explanations for how and why honey bees seemingly found food through dance language recruitments. When scent is eliminated, you reject the studies on the grounds that scentless situations aren't "natural," and, therefore, bees could not have a system in place to use only in unnatural situations.

So you've offered a lot of criticisms of other people's work. That's why I asked for your recommendations on designing an experiment that could truly test the hypothesis in question.

But the whole thing makes me curious, too. Why wouldn't you create your own testing protocol to, once-and-for-all, refute a hypothesis proposing a dance language in honey bees? Do you conduct your own research? Or, are you only a critic of other scientific efforts?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Ruth, Nice, informative posts with some very interesting and useful information for those of us lower on the scientific understanding food chain. I really enjoyed the cultural information and getting to know you a little better, thank you! I have a much clearer understanding from your most recent DL post above than I was able to get from all the previous. 

On the subject of Prickly pear cactus I have been involved in wilderness survival camping for decades. In Colorado this is one of the main, easily identifiable and safe (toxin wise) food sources. I too found the catcus to be slimy and somewhat bland although more palatable than many wild foods I'd eaten. I unfortunately never had the opportunity to try the fruit but will make it a point when next I get a chance. I envy your trips to Israel.

On the subject of behavioral science in relation to this topic, without having to tax you on a different discipline, am I understanding there is a division in the scientific community which indicates we are attributing behavior to instincts and that may not be true?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Yeah, try being really NICE, maybe that will work. She's ignoring me.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I make 40 trips a year to the big apple and talk to about 500 New Yorkers a week. I spend hours locked in traffic, in resturaunts, at our markets, waiting sometimes an hour to make the mile to a tunnel or a bridge. It is no small task in itself just to survive there. The culture and experiance for me is almost as much enjoyment as selling honey. What I have found is New Yorkers don't mince words much when they have something to say. I guess I'm used to that. I'm not patronizing Ruth, I genuinely enjoyed her recent posts. I feel I'm gaining something from what she has to share. She's squelched me a few times, don't take it personally. She dosen't seem to.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To buckbee,

The answer to your question whether I can "restate the above as an English sentence" is: No!

All I can do for you is drop the semi-colons; which may, or may not turn it into proper English.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

OK, let's deal with this bit then:

>I do not question that honeybees dance; nor that scientists can obtain from the dances distance & direction information about the approximate site of the foragers' food-source.

So honeybees 'dance'. By 'dance', I presume you mean something like 'a series of movements that have a structure or form', otherwise we can't call it a 'dance' but merely random movement. So why would an insect waste valuable foraging time on apparently organised movements that had no purpose? Do you think they dance just for the hell of it?

And if scientists can extract meaningful information from their behaviour, then why can't other bees?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Joel,

Re: Prickly pears. You mean you ate the pads? Raw? 

I don't know what the fruit of the prickly pear that grows wild in the US tastes like. I'm sure it is not toxic, but it may be too sour. Or, perhaps there are different kinds growing wild in the US, as well as south of the border. It never occurred to me to ask where the fruit I rarely see in supermarkets here, actually came from. It's pretty expensive too; about a buck for one piece.

Prickly pear bushes have practically come to symbolise Mexico. Funny as it is, there was a well-known painter who painted very exotic scenes from the Old Testaments. And his paintings always included prickly pears as part of the scenery, even though the plant never existed in the area in biblical times. 

Also, out of curiosity, I once surfed the Web in an attempt to find out the origin of this plant. All I was able to find was that it grows wild both in Australia and the Americas. But I still have no idea whether it is native to both continents which lie very far apart today.

Re: Visits to Israel. Haven't been there for very, very many years.


Re: The Behavioral Science, I subscribe to a School known as Schneirla's School in Behavior. The School, is opposed to European Ethology, and is based on Morgan's Canon, and on discrediting the claim of a genetic predetermination in the development of any individual traits, including behavioral traits. But I can't really go into that; except to note that the controversy between those two schools has been going on since the mid-30's of last century. And the Nobel Committee did a great disservice to the whole field of Behavioral Science in the Nobel Prize it awarded in Medicine or Physiology, in 1973.

Re: NYC, New Yorkers come in an almost endless variety of races, colors, and temperaments. One main reason I like NYC is that it is the only European-style city in the whole US; where you can find everything you need within a short walking distance. I've never even learned to drive.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

I've beem reading this thread with minimal interest. I keep thinking, "Gosh, I should care about this." Now, I've just realized why it doesn't seem so important to me.

>"The DL controversy concerns the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science."<

I'm far more interested in beekeeping than in Behavioral Science. The question of why bees dance just isn't at the top of my list of interesting questions.

Now I can go on with my life and not feel guilty for not caring!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Joel,
You are probably only a couple of incarnations short of total enlightenment.  Last time I visited NY (1995), I was there lass than an hour before my bag was stolen. My anger was somewhat alleviated by a blonde of Swedish descent, who took me to her cabin in the Catskills and did unspeakable things to my body for a week - but she was from Seattle.

Since our scientific friend seems more interested in talking about prickly pears than engaging me in debate, I will retire to my sick bed and try to get over this darn flu that has be bugging me for a week.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

You get bogged down with semantics, and part of it may be my fault. When I used the term "spatial information", I was referring specifically to the information which, according to the DL hypothesis, dance-attendants obtain from honeybee dances, and then use. That information is restricted to information about the distance & direction of the location of the foragers' food-source, contained in waggle-dances, and to the information about the maximal distance from the hive, within which the foragers' food-source is to be found, that is contained in round dances.

The kind of "spatial information" that enables bees, for instance foragers trained to feed at a specific small feeder, at a specific site, to repeatedly fly to that feeder, is a very different matter. Such bees learn to use landmarks along the way. There is a basic difference between using landmarks that gradually lead you to a specific site with which you are familiar, and using distance & direction information that lead you at least close to a site that you are not familiar with at all, and then finding the site, because you know the odor of that site, and can, therefore, search for such odors not too far from the point you reached by using the distance & direction information alone. Round dances contain information only But you know the odor of the site, and can then search for the odors nearby. According to the DL hypothesis round dances only tell recruits to start searching for the right odor, at the hive, and search only to the limits of the round dance-range.

To test the DL hypothesis, you need to test whether recruits do, or do not use the specific type of "spatial information" that is contained in the dances (that has absolutely nothing to do with any information about landmarks along the way).

The necessary test was already conducted by v. Frisch in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, although at the time he knew nothing about the specific type of "Spatial information" contained in the dances. He trained his foragers to a feeder with sugar-water, close to the hive. They performed only round dances, without a trace of a waggle. And at the time he did not even know that foragers that feed on liquid food can perform waggle-dances. Nonetheless, there were suggestions in the literature that foragers may be able to somehow, inform hive-mates of the location of their own food-source. There were other claims in the literature, that hive-mates find the foragers' food-source by actually following the foragers in flight all the way from the hive to the food.

The results v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment fully sufficed to conclude that honeybee-recruits find food with the foragers' food-odor in the field, 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.

I shall not describe the tests v. Frisch conducted in that study, nor the results he obtained. And I shall not explain why they fully justified his conclusion, nor why they grossly contradicted his later, sensational DL hypothesis, at least 20 years before its inception. I had already done that before, and I will not do it again.

I gave you other experimental data that grossly contradict the DL hypothesis. Each of those types of data alone suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis. I don't know why this does not suffice for you? And why you believe that I need to design my own experiment, to yet again test whether honeybee-recruits do, or do not use the specific type of "spatial information" that is contained in foragers'-dances? What I need to do is exactly the opposite, i.e. avoid trying to again solve a problem that had already been repeatedly fully adequately solved before!

I criticize the experiments, and/or interpretations of data by DL supporters, to show that they have never been able to achieve anything even close to the required experimental confirmation of the existence of the honeybee DL. If they are not yet convinced that they are wasting time, talent, and good research funds, in chasing after that experimental confirmation, let THEM continue to try and obtain that confirmation. I am fully satisfied that all they are doing is "chasing phantoms".

The one thing they should, however, certainly stop doing, is repeatedly delude themselves, then the editors of prestigious scientific journals (who never bother to consult any DL opponents), and then the general public, with their ever new claims to have finally achieved the required experimental confirmation; which never happened!

As for what I said about the radar-tracking study, you misquoted me, and consequently completely misinterpreted me. I never said that the study was done under conditions that were not "natural". I said that the study showed that honeybees have a DL that can exist only "outside of nature", because as soon as you add scent to the food (or even just to the close vicinity of the food), that DL completely disappears. If honeybee-recruits are able to use a DL, the addition of scent to the food, could in no way stop them from using that DL; all the more so, since in nature, they are expected to use their DL whenever they are recruited to scented sources, and they never find any unscented sources anyway.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> lass than an hour before my bag was stolen

Ah, keep your eyes OFF the lasses, and ON
your bags, next time!









Actually, as long as you stay away from the
Holland Tunnel on Friday evenings, when all
the touristicas take buses to Broadway,
and stay uptown (I like the Wales, a little
"boutique" hotel with a very attentive staff)
New York is not at all scary. If I can drive
through Manhattan, anyone can.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

I need to post a message on the BeeSource P.O.V. site. I am pretty sure I had done something like that before, then unsubscribed. But I don't remember how I did it, and I haven't been able to retrieve the information by checking all over Bee-L, and BeeSource.

Can anyone tell me how to do it?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To buckbee,

Re in the Chatroom an explanation of honeybee dances that I had published in ABJ (2000)140(2)p.98. That should answer your question about what they "waste" time and energy on.

As for the your point re the fact that scientists can obtain the spatial information contained in honeybee dances, I answered that before, too.

Scientists can obtain the information only after carrying out a preliminary experimental research, for the specific honeybee species, and strain, from which they want to obtain the information. Honeybees obviously do not carry out any scientific research. Besides, the fact that humans can do something is certainly no evidence whatsoever, that honeybees can do the same. Haven't you noticed that humans, whether scientists, or not, can do a million things that honeybees can not do?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To hillside,

Not so fast!

With apologies to beekeepers all over the world, I personally consider the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science, more important than the problems beekeepers may face.

The proper resolution of the DL controversy is, however, of considerable importance, also for beekeepers, because of what I call the "technique". In v. Frisch's massive 1967 book about the honeybee DL, you will find only one very brief chapter about sending bees to flowers of a desired type by use of odor alone.

It turns out that v. Frisch was told by an experienced beekeeper that he sends bees to flowers of a desired type, by offering sugar-water on such cut flowers right in front of the hive. V. Frisch experimented with the "technique", and improved it by offering the food on the cut flowers in a wire-mesh cage, to prevent "robbery". He then recommended it to beekeepers, but at the time he did not have the fame he later gained thanks to the "discovery of the DL, and few, except the Soviet, heeded his advice.

After "discovering" the honeybee DL, v. Frisch concluded that foragers who foraged on sugar-water on the cut flower right in front of the hive, or inside the hive, would perform round dances, which would enable recruits to find such flowers only near the hive, i.e. not further than 100 m. from the hive, for any honeybee strain. He, thus, unjustifiably undermined the usefulness of the "technique".To send the bees to flowers of a desired type that are farther from the hive, he proposed that the colonies first be brought to the flowers' area (which is always a very good idea, when feasible), and the "technique" be used then; or else, that foragers should be step-trained to feed on sugar-water on cut flowers of the desired type, all the way to the flowers'-area, which would have been very cumbersome for beekeepers. This is what you will find in the very brief chapter about the "technique", in his 1967 book.

Because of that, and for various other reasons, use of the "technique" never attracted beekeepers in the West. The beekeeper who taught the "technique" to v. Frisch, claimed it worked very well. V. Frisch, who experimented with it, claimed it worked very well. The Soviets, who used it, claimed it worked very well. And once the lid is closed completely on the DL, honeybee-researchers will realise that usefulness of the "technique" need not at all be limited only to flowers of the desired type near the hive.


Wenner has, therefore, been urging honeybee-researchers to resume research on the "technique". I know he gave a lecture on this issue at the International Congress on Social Insects, in which he participated in St. Petersburg last August, where he was treated with great appreciation for his own honeybee-research.

So you better route for DL opponents! They are striving only to help you.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

The steering bees technique may work -- if you're lucky and the flowers you want them to visit are the flowers that have the best nectar source around.  But the bees will find those flowers anyway.

At any rate it isn't a useful technique in my part of the country where where is no prefered floral source. I consider myself lucky if the basswood picks up by the time the raspberries are trailing off. 

I'd rather put my energies into making sure the bees are strong when they find a good source than worry about which source I'm going to try to steer them to. There's rarely any choice anyway.

On the other hand I can understand why you find animal behavior interesting. I'm sure it's a great field of study.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks, Ruth, for the response. I find this issue interesting, although I certainly wouldn't consider myself a zealous supporter of either side. I have not vested interests in the matter -- I've never conducted formal research that supports one side or the other.

I have observed "dances" by bees to locate feeding positions in the field several times, always with good results. As you've pointed out, just because humans can interpret such behaviors doesn't mean that bees can; of course, just because humans can interpret "dances" doesn't mean that bees can't, either.

"To test the DL hypothesis, you need to test whether recruits do, or do not use the specific type of "spatial information" that is contained in the dances (that has absolutely nothing to do with any information about landmarks along the way)." -Ruth Rosin

This is the sort of thing I was driving at, but how, specifically, could you avoid other influences? I know you've said repeatedly that you won't design an experiment, yet you are one of the first to criticize the designs of others and point out the weaknesses. Why not start at the beginning, and make some suggestions at least on what sorts of techniques, in your mind, would lead to accurate tests of a "dance language?"

By the way, just as a supposition, why couldn't a "dance language" also contain information about landmarks? Just because we as humans might not be able to interpret the "language" fully doesn't mean that bees might not convey such information, does it? If it does, why?

"The results v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment fully sufficed to conclude that honeybee-recruits find food with the foragers' food-odor in the field, 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." -Ruth Rosin

I see your point with this, but I'm not sure that it rules out a dance language yet. What about instances in which bees recruit nestmates to valuable resources farther away? Let's say, for example, that a few honey bees find a valuable source of nectar two miles from their hive (far enough away that the energy expended on the flight to the resource is considerable); while other sources might be available closer to the hive, this localized source is superior to closer sources. For the sake of argument, let's reduce it to one type of flower: the foragers find a big field of sweetclover two miles from the hive. The only other flower in bloom in the foraging area is also sweetclover, but except for this one field, the sweetclover plants are scattered widely. How could the foragers recruit nestmates to this resources? Scent alone wouldn't necessarily work -- the closer, scattered plants would confuse the bees searching only by scent. Wandering to all points of the compass would be ineffective -- the foragers might locate nothing of value if they flew two miles in a different direction. So, how could the first foragers recruit their nestmates? Or, are you suggesting that no such recruitment would take place?

I'm curious, too, about your thoughts on the recent reports of ants "teaching" their nestmates new routes to reach resources. Are these researchers badly mistaken too? Or, are ants far more complex organisms than honey bees?

(Spelling mistakes edited.)

[ February 14, 2006, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

And, like usual, I forgot one other question: again, I know it's perhaps semantics, but I'll ask anyway:

"I never said that the study was done under conditions that were not "natural". I said that the study showed that honeybees have a DL that can exist only "outside of nature"...." -Ruth Rosin

First, what's the difference between "unnatural" and "outside of nature?"

Secondly, how could an organism maintain such a complex system (a "dance language") only for use in conditions that occur completely "outside nature?" I realize the question is somewhat along a teleological line of reasoning, but I can't imagine that even we, as humans, have some sort of additional system of communication (such as mental telepathy) just lying latent in our system that could appear in circumstances "outside of nature," yet never is or has been used otherwise.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

I
Most tests on honeybee-recruitment are actually done under "unnatural" conditions, because in nature you are unlikely to find identical small sources of attractive odors that are arranged in the field according to a specific design predetermined by the experimenters, and a group of foragers foraging only at one of the sources that contains enough food for the foragers to repeatedly fill their honey-sacs for a couple of hours. (In nature honeybee-foragers must gather nectar from many different flowers to fill their honey-sacs, and you can actually see them doing it.) Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with designing such experiments, because they all have what is essential, i.e. sources of attractive odors in the field, dancing foragers, and hive-mates that can gather food in the field, but are not doing so. Since recruits have no way of knowing what is, or is not available in the field, then, whatever is available in the field (even if designed by the experimenters), could not, in any way, prevent recruits from using their DL (if they only have the ability to use such a DL).

The problem with the radar-tracking study is that the authors assume (as do others who studied honeybee-recruitment),that recruits, that have no idea what is, or is not available in the field, should continue to use their DL (if they have such a DL), even when the food, feeder, feeder stand, and feeder-site, have no odors. The authors also claim that their results show that their tracked bees indeed used the DL; which means that they must have the ability to do so. Their tests, however, lack (according to their claim), one essential factor, i.e. odors that could enable recruits presumably using the DL, to find the feeder. (Finding the food in the feeder, was another matter. I shall skip the details, but there was a "key" to opening the feeder, that new bees, that arrived on their own, when there were no foragers feeding there, could not do it.)

The problem with that study, can be stated in another way, as I had done from the start (and Wenner later included in his critique of the study on the BeeSource P.O. V.). The honeybee DL hypothesis was formulated specifically to explain how recruits find their foragers' food-source (and other sources with the same food-odor), in the field. And you cannot, in principle, test such a hypothesis by studying only bees that never found any food!

It is, of course, impossible for honeybees to have a DL that exists only outside of nature, but disappears as soon as you add scent to the food. And, of course, I do not believe, the authors could have discovered that honeybee-recruits use a DL, that can exist only "outside of nature", because such a DL cannot exist at all. 

I pointed out, that this leaves me only the other, remaining alternative, i.e. that there was something wrong with the study. In fact, I strongly suspect that the bees radar-tracked in that study were not regular-recruits, but re-recruited trained foragers, because they behaved as regular recruits never do, and regular-recruits never behave as the 2 tracked bees that landed on the feeder-stand did. How the authors could have (in that specific study) tracked only re-recruited trained foragers, when they stressed in print that they radar-tracked only bees with individual number-tags, i.e. with a known history, that had never visited the feeder at the experimental site, I cannot explain. 

I would, in no way, accuse the authors of outright fraud. However as one of the authors explained to me), the study published in Nature of 2005, was actually part of a more extensive study, that radar-tracked various other types of bees, during 2 different seasons. The results of the tracking of the other types of bees were published separately (in PNAS of 2005). The printed statement about the season during which the part reported in Nature was done, is an error (as that author explained). The part published in Nature was actually done during the second season of the part reported in PNAS. During that season different type of bees, including the presumed recruits reported in the Nature publication, were tracked during the same period of a couple of weeks, during any time of the day, and in no particular order. But only a single bee could be tracked at a time. Two of the 3 British team-members, and probably also the third one (who had actually played a major role in developing the harmonic radar that can track insects in flight), were apparently busy with the radar equipment, and did not see what was happening at the hive, or at the experimental feeder, which was monitored by the two German team-members, who had at least another 8 helpers (thanked in the acknowledgement). All this might open the door to inadvertent errors.

In fact, the radar-tracked bees in that specific study behaved as re-recruited trained foragers would be expected to behave if (1) they used distant landmarks outside the very large experimental area; (2) the feeder-stand was contaminated by environmental odors; (3) the feeder was not so contaminated, at least not at the time those 2 tracked bees that landed on the feeder-stand, did so. I have good enough reasons not to exclude all these 3 possibilities.

I need to know whether the un-tracked new bees that arrived at the feeder-site on their own, did so with, or without an upwind zigzag, to know with certainty whether the feeder-stand was, or was not contaminated by environmental odors. I cannot obtain an answer to my repeated questions about it; which is why I do not trust the authors who were involved in monitoring the hive & feeder-site. 

I also do not trust the authors, because they have shown an inability to think straight. I pointed out that they seriously accept Gould's conclusion from his Science (1975) study. In that study Gould, however, claimed to have experimentally confirmed use of a DL only under v. Frisch's conditions. He never did! But since the authors believe he did, they should have conducted their own study under v. Frisch's conditions, the way Gould used those conditions, which required, among others, use one scent for training, and another scent for testing. The authors did exactly the opposite, they used no scented food at all!

This is as much as I can say about that radar-tracking study. Get me an answer to my so far unanswered question, and I might be able to say more.

Re: Telepathy. You said you can't believe that humans have it. Very good. You shouldn't!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck again,

In response to your earlier post: I criticize the work done by DL supporters in order to make them understand they are wasting time, talent, and good research funds, "chasing phantoms", and certainly not in order to join them in their utterly silly activities!

If you conclude that the DL hypothesis requires further testing, you design the tests, and you carry them out! I would not touch any further tests with a "ten foot pole",

I do not want to offend you, but, in what I should, or should not do, in science, I rely on my own decisions; not yours. And you can "sue me", if you don't approve.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck, yet again, and for the very last time!

Re your comment: By the way, just as a supposition, why couldn't a "dance language" also contain information about landmarks? Just because we as humans might not be able to interpret the "language" fully doesn't mean that bees might not convey such information, does it? If it does, why?

V. Frisch already found out in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, that recruits find only sources with the foragers' food-odor, and this includes sources to which the foragers are not flying, and cannot even know exist at all. 

How could the foragers inform recruits about the landmarks they need to use to get to sources to which the foragers are not flying, and do not even know exist at all???????????????????????????

Scientists do not pose silly questions, but you insist on doing just that! And I can not, and will not, take it any longer!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>...the fact that humans can do something is certainly no evidence whatsoever, that honeybees can do the same. Haven't you noticed that humans, whether scientists, or not, can do a million things that honeybees can not do?

Yes, I had spotted that. Mostly they are things that no well-adjusted bee would ever want to do: watching TV, driving cars, starting wars, doing 'scientific research' and so on.

Have you noticed that bees can do a few things that humans cannot do? Has a human ever created a pound of honey by gathering plant nectar? Or built a home using only the secretions from its own body?

One thing I have never seen bees do - waste time over pointless arguments about things they really can know nothing about.

So I'm taking a lesson from them, as of now.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Can anyone tell me how to do it?

I could, just like I tried to explain chatrooms and bullitin boards, but it would be a waste of time as you haven't figured those out yet.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

I think the best way to understand that there is something wrong with the conclusions of the authors of the radar-tracking study published in Nature (May, 12, 2005),is to examine the conclusions from an evolutionary point of view.

The authors claim that the bees tracked in that specific study could not have been anything other than regular-recruits. If all those tracked bees arrived at points that were at about the correct distance & direction, according to the information contained in the dances they attended (before the tracked bees started searching, or turned around and flew back to the hive), regular-recruits could accomplish that only if they used the distance & direction information contained in the dances. This is correct, if the tracked bees were indeed, regular-recruits, that had never visited that feeder-site at that specific site, before.

However, none of the bees tracked in that study found the feeder, and this is true even for the only two tracked bees that arrived at the feeder-site on their own, without any upwind zigzag, and actually landed on the feeder-stand. The authors claimed that none of the tracked bees found the feeder, because the authors eliminated all effects of odors from the food, feeder, & feeder-stand. 

So, if you look at matters from the authors' point of view, they discovered that their tracked bees used the DL, when recruited to an odorless source. But, as soon as you use scented food, you get the typical upwind zigzag, (as the invariable final stage of arrival of new bees), and this alone suffices to completely discredit any claim for use of any DL.

So, from the authors' point of view, we are required to accept that honeybees have a DL, which they can use only under conditions where it would be utterly useless to them, i.e. when recruited to an odorless source, which they can never find either with, or without, the aid of a DL.

Evolution could never equip honeybees never was, and never could be of any use to the bees!

Re: The ant "teachers". I remember reading about it very recently, and dismissing any notion that what happened there had anything to do with the human concept of "teaching".


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To buckbee,

The things that humans can do, and bees do not do, the bees not only never would want to do, but never could do.

Apart from that, you confuse capabilities which require "brains", and lots of "brains", like using a language of symbols, with capabilities that require no "brains", or very little "brains". Producing honey, and wax does not require of a honeybee any "brains", just as the ability to produce sweat, or red blood-cells, which humans (but not honeybees), can produce, does not require humans to use any "brains". Honeybee foraging, and constructing wax-cells that fit snugly around their own bodies, requires honeybees to have some "brains", but it actually requires qualitatively very simple "brain" capabilities.

It seems to me that you decided that all scientists do is "waste time over pointless arguments about things they really can know nothing about".

That's fine with me. Just stay out of Science!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To bullseye bill,

I'm glad that somebody finally responded to my query.

Since you say you could do it, please, just tell me step by step, how to post a message on the BeeSource P.O.V. list.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>It seems to me that you decided that all scientists do is "waste time over pointless arguments about things they really can know nothing about".

If you can distort what I said to arrive at that conclusion, then you are the one who should stay out of science.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

To Ruth,

I appreciate your responses, although I'm not entirely sure how to interpret some of your comments towards the ends of some of your posts. In one, you say you don't want to offend me, yet in your next post, you call my questions "silly." You may view them as silly; I'm not intending them to be silly. I don't feel I fully comprehend the controversy yet, and I'm trying to gain a better understanding of differences of opinion. Answers to these "silly" questions help clarify the issue for me.

Here's the big contradiction that I see right now in your position, and part of the reason why I asked your opinions on designing an experiment:

In some studies, you claim that the researchers use scented food (odors), and the bees are simply using the odor to locate the food. In the experiments that rely on unscented food (no odors), you claim any dance language would fail because the final localization of the food must be completed using odors, even though the initial flight might use information contained in a dance language. 

In one case, you suggested replacing food with one scent for food containing a different scent. I see problems there, too, with the design of the experiment. If recruits use information from a dance language for a while, then switch to using odors received from the dancers to pinpoint the source, the switched scent will confuse the issue. At the same time, how could you distinguish between recruits and scouts? Are new bees arriving at the food with the changed scent recruits, or scouts?

Am I understanding you to say that if the bees in the radar-tracking study would find the sources of food without an upwind zigzag, you would accept the results as supporting a dance language?

"I criticize the work done by DL supporters in order to make them understand they are wasting time, talent, and good research funds, "chasing phantoms", and certainly not in order to join them in their utterly silly activities!" -Ruth Rosin

But wouldn't you be a DL opponent? If anyone -- you or anyone else -- designed a great experiment that completely refuted the existence of a dance language in honey bees, wouldn't you be one of the first to hold up those results as evidence against the "DL hypothesis?" At the same time, I wonder if the same experiment showed the opposite -- support of the "DL hypothesis" -- if you'd still regard it as evidence, or if you'd discredit or ignore it.

That's one of the biggest problems that I have with both sides in this argument -- science should be free from bias. Supporters and opponents in this debate are too emotionally involved.

"If you conclude that the DL hypothesis requires further testing, you design the tests, and you carry them out!" -Ruth Rosin

I'd like to! I'd really prefer to design experiments, though, that both sides would accept as valid tests, willingly or grudgingly. To do that, I (or anyone else) would need to know what faults others have seen in past experiments and how those faults might be avoided.

"I do not want to offend you, but, in what I should, or should not do, in science, I rely on my own decisions; not yours." -Ruth Rosin

In some sense, true (although I'm guessing, if you're not independently wealthy, that you also have to rely on the decisions of granting boards for funding research questions). At the same time, you're such an outspoken opponent of a dance language in bees that I would think it would behoove you to conduct your own research on the topic to -- once-and-for-all -- refute the "DL hypothesis."

"How could the foragers inform recruits about the landmarks they need to use to get to sources to which the foragers are not flying, and do not even know exist at all???????????????????????????" -Ruth Rosin

Ah, yes, but this statement assumes that honey bees are only searching for resources by odor, and not by any distance or direction information from the "dances" of scouts. If someone gives you directions to a gas station, you look another direction and see one of the tall signs every gas station feels necessary, and head to a different gas station, you're not relying on any landmarks that the person who gave you directions might have included either.

"The ant "teachers". I remember reading about it very recently, and dismissing any notion that what happened there had anything to do with the human concept of "teaching"." -Ruth Rosin

Why? Do you believe in a fundamental separation between humans and all other animals? Or, was there some fault in the observations and experiments in this particular study?

Now, I know your question about posting in the P.O.V. section wasn't addressed to me, and I'm definitely not an authority on how that section works, but I don't think individuals simply "post" in that section. I believe Barry (and maybe others?) selects writings and adds them to the P.O.V. section. I doubt any of us who are guests on this site can simply add our own posts to the P.O.V. section.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To buckbee,

What is the UNDISTORTED meaning of your statement that you claim I DISTORTED?


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To KIeck,

1. Before you even think of dabbling in science, I would advise you to spend several years just solving problems in math & geometry. That should teach you to think straight, and train you to keep in mind a very long chain of logical arguments, without losing links in the process. You obviously do not have this ability, which is essential for doing science.

You could not figure out from the details I provided about the results v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, that new bees that arrived at sources with the foragers, food-odor to which the foragers were not flying, and could not have even known existed at all, could not have received from the foragers any information about landmarks. You also do not know of the Law of Parsimony, which requires scientists to adopt the simplest explanation that suffices to explain their results. This means that if new bees could have found sources with the foragers' food-odor, even without following the foragers in flight all the way from the hive to the source, and without any information about the distance & direction of the source, or any landmarks information, then, scientists must accept that new bees that arrived at the foragers' own feeder, could also have arrived there without any information except odor-information.

2. I already explained why scientists take it for granted that new-arrivals at sources with the foragers' food-odor are not scouts. And I will not do it again.

I didn't suggest introducing a switch of scents. This is what v. Frisch himself did. He also used a sugar-solution of low concentration, (no dancing) during most of the step-training process. I won't explain why. But this does not confuse the recruits. Recruits learn to become attracted to the odors associated with the reward of food they receive (as dance-attendants), from the dancing foragers. They fly out. In mos experimental situations, they find nothing, and return to the hive to attend another dance, and leave again, and so on. But the more dances they attend, the more food they receive from the dancing foragers, and the stronger the attraction they develop towards the odors associated with the food; which increases their chance of success.

If you switch to food with a new odor at the foragers'-feeder, for actual test, and scatter in the field other sources with this new odor, recruits must gradually unlearn to be attracted by the first odor, and learn to be attracted by the new odor; which makes them less efficient in finding sources with the new odor. (There is much more to be said about it, but I won't say it, because I have no intention of teaching you everything you do not know about honeybee behavior, from scratch.)

3. You do not understand that we are not dealing with a DL hypothesis, and an "odor alone all along" hypothesis, that are on an equal status. No one questions that honeybees can find attractive odor sources by use of odor alone all along, because they are flying insects, and we know that flying insects in general can do it. Moreover, v. Frisch never questioned that honeybees can do it too. Use of odor alone all along forms an integral part of his DL hypothesis, because even according to his DL hypothesis, if recruits find no attractive odors by use of the distance & direction information alone, they must then start using odor alone all along, i.e. search for attractive odors. And, in fact, in tests with several very small, man-made sources of attractive odors, it turns out that, even according to the DL hypothesis, most recruits must end up using odor alone all along.
Except that according to the DL hypothesis, they know approximately where to search for attractive odors.

It is only the amazing claim that honeybees can use a DL of symbols, of a qualitative complexity not known anywhere in the world of living organisms, except in humans, that require a fully convincing experimental confirmation.

You might compare the situation to a trial by jury, where the jury must take it for granted that the defendant is not guilty, unless otherwise proved. Scientists must take it for granted that honeybees do not have a DL, unless otherwise proved. And any grounds for reasonable doubt, must result in a not-guilty verdict, i.e. the verdict that honeybees are not guilty of having any DL. Where you demand an unbiased treatment towards both sides in the controversy, scientists must do their best to reject the DL hypothesis, i.e. to find the defendants (honeybees, in this case), not guilty of having any DL.

It is for this reason, that even if it turns out that the un-tracked new-arrivals that arrived at the experimental feeder-site on their own (especially during the training period, when the feeder had a sugar-solution of high concentration), invariably arrived there without an upwind zigzag, I still would not accept that honeybees have a DL. Instead, I would start searching for new causes for reasonable doubt. When I can not get an answer to a very simple question about that radar-tracking study, this alone suffices to provide me with a very good cause for reasonable doubt.

The scientists that published the study are like witnesses subpoenaed to testify in court. If they do not know the answer to a specific question, because they participated in the study in a capacity which prevented them from knowing the answer, it's perfectly fine, if they only say so. However, if the scientists that are expected to know the answer, avoid providing it, it is as if they were in contempt of court.

4. Re: Humans and ants. I have no doubt that humans stand on the highest rung of a ladder where all animal groups are arranged, in accordance with the highest psychic level animals in that group show they have. Moreover, humans are the only animals on that rung, and all other animal groups are on various far lower rung than humans. Insects on a far lower rung than rats. Sea-anemones are on a far lower rung than insects. And sponges are on a far lower rung than sea-anemones.

I am sure you understood little of what I said here. There is, however, no magic-hat you can put on your head, that will instantly turn you into a scientist. You need to do a hack of a lot of hard labor to become a scientist; let alone a good one.

5. You want to understand what is wrong with the work done by DL supporters? You will have to read everything they published, the few published critiques of their conclusions, and many such unpublished critiques, scattered in various places on the Internet.

6. I am not helping you at all by answering your silly questions. Instead, I am only giving you the utterly false impression that if I only answered your questions, that would magically turn you into a scientist. It won't! And I will not answer any more of your questions, ever again!

7. If you could only think straight, you would know that no one can be allowed to place your posts on the P.O.V. list, without your permission. Doing that would be a far more serious matter than simply moving your posts from one Forum of the Chatroom, to another.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't have time to digest most of the rest of it right now, much less to respond to most of its, but I'm very, very puzzled by this last point:

"7. If you could only think straight, you would know that no one can be allowed to place your posts on the P.O.V. list, without your permission. Doing that would be a far more serious matter than simply moving your posts from one Forum of the Chatroom, to another." -Ruth Rosin

You still fail to understand how this bulletin board works. We are not in a "Chatroom," but rather, we're posting messages on an internet bulletin board. I'm not the one who moved these posts -- the administrators or moderators are the ones who moved the posts. And, I responded to your desire to post information on the P.O.V. section by saying that I didn't think anyone other than Barry (or maybe a few other administrative types on this website) could post information on the P.O.V. list. The "without your permission" part still baffles me. . . .


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I said:
>
One thing I have never seen bees do - waste time over pointless arguments about things they really can know nothing about.

You somehow took that to mean:

>It seems to me that you decided that all scientists do is "waste time over pointless arguments about things they really can know nothing about".

And you expect me to take your arguments seriously after that?

And given the insulting tone of your response to Kieck, you have probably lost any lingering support you may have had here. I suggest you go back to studying something less contentious, like 'Why Living In New York Turns People Into Sociopathic Harpies'.

[ February 15, 2006, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: buckbee ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

I think the reference to "honey" makes that old saying particularly relevant to this discussion on this board. I also think it agrees with what Buckbee said. I haven't always seen "eye-to-eye" with Buckbee on other threads, but I've always appreciated his respectful responses when I haven't agreed entirely with his opinions.

So, to delve back into semantics briefly, I do indeed know of parsimony (or Occam's Razor, or Morgan's Canon, or whatever you choose to call it). I know the premise of parsimony, how it's supposed to work, why it's supposed to work, etc. 

"This means that if new bees could have found sources with the foragers' food-odor, even without following the foragers in flight all the way from the hive to the source, and without any information about the distance & direction of the source, or any landmarks information, then, scientists must accept that new bees that arrived at the foragers' own feeder, could also have arrived there without any information except odor-information."

So how do we explain those instances where bees from a single hive are travelling a great distance down wind to reach an area with an abundant resource, foregoing much closer, less abundant, similar resources along the way? I've witnessed this many times, where my bees are skipping past scattered clover plants to head, literally, more than a mile away to a pasture dominated by clover. Had they all visited these pastures when the winds were from a different direction and remembered where the resource was located? Is that really a simpler explanation than a dance language? Or, should we believe that all honey bees spend vast amounts of energy every day wandering around the countryside to eventually end up in situations where they would be downwind from these areas of resources? Again, is that explanation simpler than a dance language? And, if it is, does it make more sense? After all, bees can't fly indefinitely without feeding either, and to suggest that all bees have to wander and feed intermittently until they happen across a valuable resource seems like a evolutionary scheme to me.

It also seems as though all the caveats thrown in to discredit some of the experiments on dance language also violate the rule of parsimony.

"It is only the amazing claim that honeybees can use a DL of symbols, of a qualitative complexity not known anywhere in the world of living organisms, except in humans, that require a fully convincing experimental confirmation." -Ruth Rosin

But even in your explanation of why bees dance, you concede that they substitute gravity for the position of the sun while they "dance." That's still a symbol, a representation of another thing.

"Scientists must take it for granted that honeybees do not have a DL, unless otherwise proved." -Ruth Rosin

I don't entirely agree with this statement. Scientists, in my opinion, should use as a null hypothesis the lack of a dance language in honey bees and attempt to disprove it, but they shouldn't take for granted either the null hypothesis or the alternate hypothesis. Taking either hypothesis for granted adds bias to the experiment.

And, science isn't the same as the legal system at all. Scientists (at least those I know) rarely couch results in absolute terms. They throw in qualifying statements, and add words such as, "usually," "rarely," "often," "appears," etc., to avoid such certainty in their conclusions.

"Re: Humans and ants. I have no doubt that humans stand on the highest rung of a ladder where all animal groups are arranged, in accordance with the highest psychic level animals in that group show they have. Moreover, humans are the only animals on that rung, and all other animal groups are on various far lower rung than humans. Insects on a far lower rung than rats. Sea-anemones are on a far lower rung than insects. And sponges are on a far lower rung than sea-anemones.

I am sure you understood little of what I said here. There is, however, no magic-hat you can put on your head, that will instantly turn you into a scientist. You need to do a hack of a lot of hard labor to become a scientist; let alone a good one."

I understood it well. I don't agree with it. I have experience with evolutionary biology and systematics, and I feel strongly that humans are NOT the "pinnacles of evolution" that we often make ourselves out to be. Evolution isn't a progression, it's not a ladder. As far as the insects/rats comparison, you're comparing to vastly different classifications of taxa; insects are generally considered a class, while rats compose several genera at best. Same sort of compariosn works for the sea anemones versus insects.

Keep in mind, too, that only recently have examples of tools used by animals other than humans been accepted, even in many scientific circles. The belief previously was that animals other than humans simply couldn't have the mental capacity to use objects as tools.

"I am not helping you at all by answering your silly questions. Instead, I am only giving you the utterly false impression that if I only answered your questions, that would magically turn you into a scientist. It won't! And I will not answer any more of your questions, ever again!" -Ruth Rosin

As I said before, I'm asking the questions to try to gain a better understanding of the "controversy," not to "turn [myself] into a scientist." But that's what scientists do! They ask questions!

And I've always been led to believe that scientists should always (ALWAYS) attempt to convey their work to other humans. Without dispersing that information, the utility of science disappears, and "science" disappears with it.


----------



## thorbue (Dec 22, 2005)

"Law of Parsimony, which requires scientists to adopt the simplest explanation that suffices to explain their results."

Well, having Parsimony's law in mind, how does one explain the fact that bees dance and the correlations with directions and distance in a simpler way than the DL-hypotesis?

[ February 15, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: thorbue ]


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Apart from that, you confuse capabilities which require "brains", and lots of "brains", like using a language of symbols, with capabilities that require no "brains", or very little "brains". Producing honey, and wax does not require of a honeybee any "brains", just as the ability to produce sweat, or red blood-cells, which humans (but not honeybees), can produce, does not require humans to use any "brains". Honeybee foraging, and constructing wax-cells that fit snugly around their own bodies, requires honeybees to have some "brains", but it actually requires qualitatively very simple "brain" capabilities.

It seems to me that you decided that all scientists do is "waste time over pointless arguments about things they really can know nothing about".

That's fine with me. Just stay out of Science!

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

Awhile ago we had a thread on rudeness and intolorablity, Ruth, I think you have truely taken the prize with this thread. Not only do you bully people who don't understand what your saying, but you belittle and name call the ones who try to understand what your saying.

If you so truely believe what you are saying, that there can't be any DL in honeybees, MAYBE you should be the one to set up and conduct an experiment to truely lay this to rest. It is apparent that nobody here could live up to your great coginitive thinking ability, to set up and run an experiment that would do more than prompt your contempt. I have drawn one conclusion from your posts however, the true reason you say that honeybees couldn't have a DL. 

Wait for it...........HONEYBEES DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BRAIN POWER TO HAVE SUCH A COMPICATED LANGUE!!!!!!!!!!!

You need to take your condiscending.......somewhere else.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"And I've always been led to believe that scientists should always (ALWAYS) attempt to convey their work to other humans. Without dispersing that information, the utility of science disappears, and "science" disappears with it."

Amen.

Keith


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

I am sure you understood little of what I have posted here to date. There is, however, no magic-hat you can put on your head, that will instantly turn you into an understanding human being. You need to do a hack of a lot of hard labor to become a human being; let alone a compasionate one.

If you could only think straight, you would know that no one can be allowed to place your posts on the P.O.V. list. Only the omnipresent Admin can do that. Doing that would be a far more serious matter than simply moving threads from the Chatroom forum to the Bee forum. That truly takes an act of Admin.  

The short answer Ruth, is send it to Barry. If he wants to, he may put it in the POV. I'd be surprized if he would do it considering your behaviour.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

A quick question for Ruth. Where might one find your peer-reviewed, scholarly, scientific papers? Original research, any topic. I plugged your name into PubMed and some other search engines and the only papers there I can be sure you authored are your commentaries on the DL. I am looking for the research you have done. I am assuming that you have engaged in some research as you are a trained scientist.

Part of most scientists training includes publishing of some research, so I assume there is a paper trail of your work. I am interested to see what kind of work you have done. One of the "Rosin Rs" there did some scorpion venom work, but I cannot tell if that is you.

Keith


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

You are mistaken if you believe that I want to "catch flies". You have also been, sadly misled, if you were ever told that becoming a scientist entails a commitment to become a popularizer of science.

Please, design your experiments any way you wish. Execute them any way you wish. Just do not bother to inform me of your results. Call me "Narrow minded!", if you so wish. But I need no further evidence that honeybees do not have a DL, just as I need no further evidence that the earth is not flat.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

This is a message I composed, and thought I lost before sending it. But, here it is, so I shall send it anyway. There may be some "words of wisdom" in there. When I compared the charge that honeybees have a DL to a trial by jury, I neglected to mention that its is a trial with no deadline for reaching a verdict. Each side is free to bring in new evidence, and new logical arguments.

I stated that if it turns out that in the radar-tracking study in Nature (2005), all new bees that arrived at the experimental feeder-site on their own, did so without any upwind zigzag, I would still not accept the data obtained in that study as sufficiently convincing evidence that the bees radar-tracked in that study, used a DL; and would, instead, search for other possible causes for reasonable doubt. I neglected to mention that the reason i would do that, is, that I already have very many causes for reasonable doubt that honeybees are guilty of having a DL, based on all the experimental evidence that already grossly contradicted the DL hypothesis, based on the fact that all earlier claims by DL supporters to have experimentally confirmed the existence of the DL, have turned out to be unwarranted; and based on the fact that I already see serious reasons for reasonable doubt in that specific radar-study, and I had already pointed those reasons out in this forum.

On top of all that, I tried to oversimplify a complex issue. But this, unfortunately, cannot be done. Staunch DL supporters take it for granted that the honeybee DL must exist, because otherwise there would be no way to explain what the PRESUMABLY genetically predetermined dancing-behavior is good for, and, hence, no way to explain how such behavior could have evolved. Thus, from their point of view, you don't need any trial to decide whether honeybees are guilty of having a DL. They are, unquestionably guilty, even without any evidence. Staunch DL supporters recognize , of course, that they still need to provide the evidence. They are convinced, however, that the evidence must exist somewhere, and if they have not found it yet, they must work harder, design better experiments, use more expensive and sophisticated equipment, or what have you. Finding the highly , when their real problem lies in assuming from the start that honeybee-dances are genetically predetermined behavior. This is why the DL controversy concerns the very foundations of the whole field of behavioral science.

As for the transformation of direction in relation to light, into direction in relation to gravity, I've tried to find a very simple explanation for that transformation, and got repeatedly stuck, and may resume the attempts some day. However, whatever the adaptive value of such behavior (if any), it cannot have anything to do with communication. And I explained why, in my publication with the explanation of dancing behavior.

I can say very little about an ISOLATED observation you present about what you saw your honeybees do. How do you even know that all the bees you saw flying to the distant clover-field were from your one hive? Do you have only one hive? What I can say, however, is that a whole field of clover gives rise to a very wide plume of clover-odors, which makes it easier for recruits to find, compared to narrow plumes from widely dispersed clover-plants.

Morgan's Cannon is based specifically on the realization that behavioral traits are traits that depend not only on the traits of the components of the material organization of an organism, but also on the type of organization. Different types of such organizations are exactly what gives us the different should have ignored exactly that which formed the most important basis of his ideas.

Humans are on the top rung, and they are the only animals on that rung, on a ladder of PSYCHIC LEVELS, where the different animal groups are arranged in accordance with the highest psychic level animals in that group can achieve.
That specific ladder is NOT organized according to any other criteria, such as, for instance, size, longevity, number of species in the genus, number of offspring an individual can raise, range of environments where members of a group can survive, speed, or what have you.

As for my style, I take it for granted that absolute proofs cannot exist in science, to the extent of seeing no need to stress that, each time I make a statement about scientific conclusions.

No one ever told me that becoming a scientist entails a commitment to become a popularizer of science. And I tend to even question that science can really be popularized.

At any rate, please, design your experiments any way you want. Carry them out any way you want. But don't even bother me with the results. You are free to label me "close minded", if you so wish. But, I do not need any further evidence that honeybees do not have a DL, an more than I need further evidence that the earth is not flat.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

Yes I worked on scorpion-venom, but became much more interested in scorpion-behavior; which is incredible to behold. I, therefore, decided to go into behavior, and soon found myself caught in a basic controversy over the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science. And this is all you need to know.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To thorbue,

I have already answered that question over and over again. See my explanation of honeybee dancing behavior in ABJ 2000(140, Feb. p.98.)I'm sure I posted a copy of that publication on this forum.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Bullseye,

The following (between the two broken lines) is what I copied from a link to Bee-L:
--------------------
BeeSource Bulletin Board
- Member's Site 
- Chat Room 

The Hive Chat Rooms 
------------------------

This leads to the confusing impression that the Chat Room is part of the BeeSource Bulletin Board. I'm also sure that the P.O.V. is part of BeeSource. Moreover, I seem to remember posting on the P.O.V. list, on my own. I may be wrong, and I don't want to start investigating.

Anyway, I do not want anything further to do with the Bulletin Board, or the Chat Rooms. Too many silly clowns there, for my taste. And that's a compliment, compared to how they really make me feel. I just want to post a message on the P.O.V. list. You say that I have to first send the message to Barry. Fine. I'll try that. And, THANKS for your assistance!


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>This leads to the confusing impression that the Chat Room is part of the BeeSource Bulletin Board.

It's not. You went to the chatroom forum where they TALK about the chatroom. If you did not go here -> http://www.bee-l.com/beesourcechat.htm <- then you never went to the chat room.

>And, THANKS for your assistance!

Your, WELCOME! Ruth.  

BTW, thanks for saying PLEASE, that was probably the only nice thing I saw you print.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To buckbee,

We just seem to disagree over what proper manners should be. I assure you, I did not learn mine in N.Y.C., nor anywhere else else in the US.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To pegjam,

Yes! I truly believe that honeybees do not have a DL, just as I truly believe that the earth is not flat. I also believe that no one needs to test any of these beliefs ever again.

So, whereas you suggest that maybe I should, I am fully convinced that I definitely should not.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kieck & kgbenson,

Re: The utility of science.

You must be kidding!!!

If humans stopped using any piece of equipment, or medication, unless they understood the underlying science, we would have to revert to the lives of cavemen


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Ruth, you're back again! :>) It's hard to believe, after the way you left last time.

But the tone of this recent conversation is the same, and so are the results, as those that happened before. And I still surprised that one with such great and clear thinking skills still has such trouble figuring out where and how to post on this board! You might be able to learn something from some of us clowns.

The guy with the big admin hat just got married last week. And I doubt that this B board is a high priority with him right now. But I suspect he will can this thread when he returns. Not because of it's content, but because of it's spirit and tone.

And so now, you are gone again! Just like before! Why do you think that might be? And I bet that you have the same problem with those other clowns that are setting on those DL peer review boards too.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"If humans stopped using any piece of equipment, or medication, unless they understood the underlying science, we would have to revert to the lives of cavemen"

I don't think we said that. At all. 

As to you scientific background, employing standard search engines and being liberal with crediting citations attributable to "Rosin R" it would appear that you haven't actually done research in decades.

I was wondering if you had something more recent, perhaps in an obscure journal. I can see by your response that this is unlikely to be the case. 

I will paraphrase one of your favorite people here in closing "Being a great scientist is like being a gentleman, if you have to tell people you are, you're not."

Keith

[ February 16, 2006, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To kgbenson,

As usual, I don't know what you said, and I don't believe you know either.

I suspect you are now implying that theoretical-analytical work is not scientific work.

I am sure, however, that kieck said he wants to conduct scientific research on a problem he does not yet fully understand; after having concluded(without even fully understanding what the problem is), that the problem requires further scientific research. These are the kind of "mind-contortions" that I refuse to deal with.

Don't bother to grade as a person, or a scientist. I couldn't care less about how you rate me.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

To Ruth

"You are mistaken if you believe that I want to "catch flies"." -Ruth Rosin

It's an old saying -- surely you've heard it before? In case you don't understand the reference, it suggests that being nice might produce better results than being caustic. I thought your goal in posting your opinions on a dance language here was to convert others to your beliefs. If that's not your intent, what are you attempting to do? Why bother posting here at all?

"You have also been, sadly misled, if you were ever told that becoming a scientist entails a commitment to become a popularizer of science." -Ruth Rosin

First, I never said that scientists need to become popularizers of science. I said that scientists have a commitment to share their work and make it understandable to members of the general public. A difference exists between the two, in my mind anyway.

But, seriously, you believe that scientists should just keep their findings to themselves? Why bother doing research, then? And, more importantly, who funds that research? If the taxpayers are funding research, shouldn't they be able to read and understand the results of the work they're paying for?

I still don't think science should be held in a realm controlled by a few individuals. I also believe that anyone who really understands what he is studying should be able to convey information about the subject to any other person at a fifth-grade reading level or above. Again, if a sanitation worker (for example only, and no offense intended against sanitation workers; I have a great deal of respect for the people who help keep our communities clean) who only completed high school is helping fund research through his tax dollars, how else could you convince him that his tax money is being well spent?

"I can say very little about an ISOLATED observation you present about what you saw your honeybees do. How do you even know that all the bees you saw flying to the distant clover-field were from your one hive? Do you have only one hive? What I can say, however, is that a whole field of clover gives rise to a very wide plume of clover-odors, which makes it easier for recruits to find, compared to narrow plumes from widely dispersed clover-plants."

I didn't refer to an "ISOLATED" observation. I stated that I've witnessed this sort of behavior many times. I also never said that all the bees were from only one hive. I'll be more specific, if that would help you.

1) The first time I really paid attention to such a situation was about eight years ago. I was in a field of canola, and particularly noticed honey bees working the field. The bees were noteworthy, to me, because of their very unusual coloring -- orangish-brown heads and thoraci clothed with bright white setae ("hair"), and black abdomens with narrow orange bands. I'd never seen specimens of Apis mellifera that looked like that before (and I've collected and observed insects for virtually my entire life), and I've never seen bees like that again. There were thousands of them working the canola, and all were colored similarly. I assumed they must be coming from one hive, so I followed them a little more than a mile upwind to where I found the hive (and, in this instance, it was a single hive). There were scattered canola plants as volunteers in fields all around that field of canola, and there were even smaller, concentrated plots of canola upwind from the hive, yet the bees were flying over or past these canola plants to reach the field of canola. Almost all of them that I observed approaching the field of canola came in with the wind, never turned back into the wind, yet found the field without "searching" (apparently) for the "scent plume" from the field.

2) I observed hundreds of thousands of bees flying over or away from sweetclover in Kansas to reach a large, dense stand of sweetclover downwind from the apiary. These were not my bees, I'm sure other bees were also visiting the stand of sweetclover, and the bees were coming from more than 50 hives just slightly less than a mile away. The "highway of bees" (sort of a hazy, long "cloud" of bees) between the field of sweetclover and the apiary was visible even from a road more than 1/8 of mile from this route for the bees. Again, the bees were flying directly to the plants, not turning back into the wind to locate a "scent plume."

3) (And this one I've observed on more than one occasion, always with different flowers -- clover, soybeans, goldenrod, etc.) I have one yard with only cordovan bees in it. Here in South Dakota, apiaries must be registered with the state, and apiaries must be space more than three miles from other apiaries. I've seen cordovan bees deliberately flying past or away from (fill in the flower) to reach larger, more dense stands of (the same flower) about one line to one-and-one-half miles downwind. On all of these occasions, the bees approached without turning back into the wind. I know you could argue that the bees were coming from feral hives, but I wonder how many uniformly cordovan feral hives exist? You could also argue that someone else might have other hives of cordovan bees, unregistered, within that three-mile radius of mine, but I doubt that. Eastern South Dakota is flat and treeless, and many square-mile sections have no houses in them. In other words, there's no place to "hide" hives.

Now, I recognize that none of these observations gives direct evidence for a dance language. I also think, to some extent anyway, that these examples weaken the hypothesis that honey bees locate food by scent alone.

I doubt the "scent" alone hypothesis anyway. I've seen bees on numerous occasions examining blocks of color that could have no "food scent" on them. Try placing an empty, yellow pan outside, and watch how many bees show up at it. Insect collectors have used "yellow pans" for years to collect bees of all sorts, as well as aphids and other insects. I've read about and observed preferences in bumble bees for one color over others (such as visiting yellow snapdragons while ignoring red and pink snapdragons within a few feet of the yellow flowers), and I've read that UV patterns on flowers help guide bees trying to find nectar.

"As for my style, I take it for granted that absolute proofs cannot exist in science, to the extent of seeing no need to stress that, each time I make a statement about scientific conclusions." -Ruth Rosin

Yet you keep repeating that under no circumstances can a dance language exist in honey bees? Isn't that an absolute statement?

I'm afraid Dennis might be right about the tone and spirit of this thread getting it canned. I'm hoping it won't -- I'm genuinely interested in both sides to this argument, and I've been involved with the thread and been following this thread to try to learn more. I realize the "Evidence" title was given for a different purpose than providing evidence against/for a dance language, but I think this one is a good digression!

Barry got married? I'm sure this board isn't high on list of priorities right now! Congratulations, Barry!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

(Sorry, double post.)

[ February 16, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

One of the amazing things about the interent is
how hard it is to hide from it: 

http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=alb-iscp&T=0&F=&S=&P=6373 
http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=alb-iscp&T=0&F=&S=&P=6985 
http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0602&L=alb-iscp&T=0&F=&S=&P=1552 
http://scienceweek.com/swbb/messages/bb129.htm

[ February 16, 2006, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## GeeBeeNC (Aug 23, 2005)

[i}I neglected to mention that its is a trial with no deadline for reaching a verdict. Each side is free to bring in new evidence, and new logical arguments.[/i] R.R. 2/15/2006 10:39 PM CST

_I also believe that no one needs to test any of these beliefs ever again._ R.R. 2/16/2006 12:39 AM CST

Which is it?


----------



## GeeBeeNC (Aug 23, 2005)

_I neglected to mention that its is a trial with no deadline for reaching a verdict. Each side is free to bring in new evidence, and new logical arguments._ R.R. 2/15/2006 10:39 PM CST

_I also believe that no one needs to test any of these beliefs ever again._ R.R. 2/16/2006 12:39 AM CST

Which is it?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45360


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>We just seem to disagree over what proper manners should be. 

Oh yes, I think THAT is a safe statement.

>I assure you, I did not learn mine in N.Y.C., nor anywhere else else in the US.

We will just have to speculate as to which charm school you attended then, as I don't suppose they use you in their advertising.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To buckbee,

Be careful! Don't accidentally swallow any of your speculations. They are laced with cyanide!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Dick,
That is funny! In a sick sort of way.

"Dolphins have a popular reputation for being excellent communicators," Lindell said. "But our study group offered only three types of response to every question we posed: a nonsensical, labored wheezing, an earsplitting barrage of unintelligible high-pitched shrieks, and in extreme cases, a shrill, distressed scream."

I'm tempted to say that this reminds me of someone, but I won't.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To GeeBeeNC,

Which is it? Both!

There is a difference between ultimate reality; which we can never know, and "scientific reality", i.e. the "scientific world view" we should accept at a specific stage in the development of our science.

The "scientific world view" we should now accept is one that has no honeybee DL in it.

This is "heavy stuff". If you have any problems here, all I can suggest is that you study the book by Thomas Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn
has been so throughly discredited by so many
people, it is currently only a punching bag for
the thrashing of undergraduates.

The basic problem is that Kuhn became a sociologist,
and found he didn't like it. He found that the
practitioners of "hard science", where values can
be measured with precision, looked upon his chosen
field with disdain. He didn't like that sort of
treatment, so he sat home alone, because he was
not invited to the sort of scientific gatherings
where hard liquor is served and unattached females
are in attendance. While he sat alone, he realized
that he could study a "population" of scientists,
and place them into a "social context", thus putting
himself in the position of being all-seeing
and all-knowing, and ridicule all of science
itself as being nothing more than a sociological
phenomena.

Nowadays, Kuhn is trotted out only by cranks who
want to claim that the current scientific
consensus, even though it is subject to massive
revision the moment any actual new evidence is
presented, is somehow "stacked" against their
personal pet belief or beliefs.

But Kuhn is a laughingstock, and citing him
anywhere outside of an assigned paper on the
subject, is a dead give-away that someone has
an axe to grind with the entire scientific
community, or the process of science itself.

So, what's a "paradigm" worth? Exactly 20 cents!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Kieck,

The claim by DL supporters that honeybees have a DL concerns ONLY HONEYBEE- RECRUITS, i.e. bees that are not foraging, and have not yet found a new area with food and learned to recognize the flowers there by SIGHT. 

All the bees you described were NOT recruits. They might have originally found the area and the flowers there, after having been recruited by other bees that already knew of that area. But when you saw them , they were PAST the stage of recruits. Their behavior was TOTALLY irrelevant to the DL controversy. 

And I refuse to respond to any further, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT COMMENTS & QUESTIONS FROM YOU! Sorry, but you can not think straight long enough to even understand what is relevant to what. I can not help you with that. And I have no idea, who could help you.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Dick Allen,

Dolphins are probably no more, and no less intelligent than dogs. They can undoubtedly learn to recognize objects by size, shape, and color, and retrieve such objects from the bottom of an aquarium. I have seen them do it. So, there is no reason why they could not do something similar with objects in the ocean, as long as the objects are at a depth that the dolphins can comfortably reach.

A lot of the hoopla about the communication abilities of dolphins was, undoubtedly, just nonsense, strongly tainted by all the excitement about the sensational "discovery" of the "dance language" of the bees.

It is, however, unfair to the dolphins to test them on land, and conclude that they are so incompetent as to be unable to find food nearby. Those dolphins were captured in the wild. They must have managed to find food in the wild before they were captured.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Thanks for saving me a few hours of reading, Jim!  I swear I was about to order it on Amazon after recommendation from such a high authority.

OK, I'll stop now.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>>It is, however, unfair to the dolphins to test them on land, and conclude that they are so incompetent as to be unable to find food nearby. Those dolphins were captured in the wild. They must have managed to find food in the wild before they were captured.

Ohh, stop it! You're killing me! You actually took that spoof dolphin story for real! No! I'm laughing so much I cn hardly spell!! Hahaaaaaaaaaaaa...


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"And I refuse to respond to any further, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT COMMENTS & QUESTIONS FROM YOU!"

Why do you keep saying this, and then keep responding to the same people?

That is like saying you are leaving a forum, and then keep coming back.

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"All the bees you described were NOT recruits." -Ruth Rosin

Actually, you can't claim that any more than I (or anyone else) could claim that they ARE recruits. I never claimed they were. I gave the examples as instances that I have observed in which honey bees are finding resources that are downwind (thereby eliminating the "odor searching" part of the hypothesis). I thought your initial claim was that honey bees "search by odor alone." These bees seemed to have been searching by sight, which isn't scent.

But that's beside the point. What evidence is there that ALL of these bees happened to find these particular fields of particular flowers? Doesn't the assumption that they all found these flowers, remembered the locations of the flowers, and returned to those flowers violate parsimony? Is that really a simpler explanation than believing some scouts recruited bees?

"Their behavior was TOTALLY irrelevant to the DL controversy." -Ruth Rosin

I agree that it's not evidence of a dance language per se, but I don't think their behavior was totally irrelevant to the discussion. I keep reading in the thread that large numbers of bees search by odor, flying past resources and turning back into the wind once the bees are in the scent plume of the resource. I provided these examples as instances that I've observed of large numbers of bees NOT approaching flowers from downwind, but rather approaching from upwind.

Based on the relatively short periods of time that these plants have nectar available for bees, I wonder if all these bees could really locate the plants, remember the plants, and return to still find nectar available. Maybe bees can evaluate plants long before they produce nectar to know when and where they need to return? (But, again, that seems far more complex to me than a dance language.)

"The claim by DL supporters that honeybees have a DL concerns ONLY HONEYBEE- RECRUITS. . . ." -Ruth Rosin

Um, no. On this one I have to differ. I know, I know, you'll say it's all semantics again, but I still have to differ. Communication, by definition, must include both senders (scouts) and receivers (recruits).

I think you're taking Dick's post too seriously, Ruth. I think he posted it to try to lighten the mood a bit -- it did for me anyway!

But clearly you approach the "controversy" with a biased opinion. Anyone who questions your views you dismiss with a "can't think straight" comment, rather than trying to provide data or clear arguments. After reading all of this information, I would take any "research" you do or have done on this topic with a grain of salt because of that bias, just like I would take any research done by strong "dance language supporters" with a grain of salt. Any "scientist" who has such a strong emotional investment in a topic like this produces results that are suspect in my mind -- there's simply too much chance that the results are skewed in the direction that the observer believes is right.

And, methinks those who protest so much lack the strong data they need to support their position -- if the data is strong enough, the arguments go away. Good evidence can stand on its own. Good data, presented clearly, can persuade people without zealous supporters and despite zealous detractors.

(Spelling typos edited only.)

[ February 16, 2006, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I can't stand it! I've been periodically peeking in to catch up on this thread, but I have refrained from commenting. I can remain quiet no longer!

Addressed to Kieck:

>Sorry, but you can not think straight long enough to even understand what is relevant to what.

Kieck's the best we've got right now Ruth, with the possible exception of Jim Fischer who, regrettably, can't keep a straight face long enough these days to "understand what is relevant to what." and apparently isn't willing to contribute any *substantial* content to this thread. I blame Dick Cheney and other current events. Too much material, not enough time...

There's a few other people who might give you a run for your money but apparently, they're not taking the bait. I'm certainly not in your league, so I won't even try.

>It is, however, unfair to the dolphins to test them on land, and conclude that they are so incompetent as to be unable to find food nearby.

We can agree on this Ruth! It is horribly unfair and shows how science can go bad when practiced by unconscionable hooligans with no agenda except to debunk other researchers and upset the apple cart. What were they thinking? Sure, it's good in one sense, I never thought they were that smart, after all they get caught in tuna fishing nets, how smart is that! So much for sonar! So much for advanced language, all they could manage is a few pitiable squeaks!

Just the same, I feel sorry for those poor dolphins. Just wait till the PETA people get hold of that piece, they'll have it for lunch. It's their kind of pie. They'll jump on it like a dog on a bone. Those researchers will be sorry the day they dissected their first rat.. I'm surprised they've gotten away with it this long..

And Dick, you should be more careful what you read. The Onion is by far the most skum-sucking, gutter-licking, garbage collecting tabloid I've come across in a long time. Completely vile and without any merit or social redeeming value whatsoever. It's no surprise they published this dolphin research, no other self-respecting publication would have touched it. I've always wondered about you.. if that's the kind of trash you read, I'm pretty sure my suspicions are correct!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To George Fergusson,

Re: The dolphin story. I now remember having seen issues of "The Onion" before. It is of course it had a report about the raccoon that hitched a ride on the latest space-ship mission. 

It is just that I am inundated daily with a tremendous amount of scientific news from many different sources, that I forgot all about "The Onion". Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> The Onion is by far the most skum-sucking, gutter-licking, garbage collecting tabloid I've come across in a long time. Completely vile and without any merit or social redeeming value whatsoever.
> 
> I've always wondered about you..


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/37408

Laugh now George!!! Hah!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> forgot all about "The Onion". Thanks for reminding me.

You're entirely welcome Ruth. We're all human. Thank you for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended









>Laugh now George!!! Hah!

You're a sick man Dick. Get help. There is hope! Aren't there any self-help groups available up there for people suffering from lack of sunlight? An AA meeting at least? The first step is admitting you have a problem...

Hehehe... reminicent of "Ask A Salmon".


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

Do I need to again post the Evidence I posted at the beginning of this thread?

You've just had the latest indoctrinating-lecture about "science" from one list-member who is an an expert in nothing except "Pathological lying!"

Kuhn is, undoubtedly, a laughingstock in the eyes of all "pseudo-scientists".


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2003)

Love the satire in the 'onion' kinda like a written version of the Old Saturday Night Live, or in Living Color.
Ahhh Dolphins, long live "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy". 

[ February 16, 2006, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: SilverFox ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

"So Long, and thanks for all the fish."


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

Re: "The Onion".

I had seen it before, on the street in NYC. Just didn't recognize it on my pc screen.

My program for composing mail somehow deletes portions I do not want deleted at all. I noticed that part of my earlier post on "The Onion", had been deleted. I, therefore, want to tell in full details, that not so long ago I saw in "The Onion" a very funny report, with photographs, about a raccon that hitched a ride on a spacship-mission. Might have been the shuttle!


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2003)

The writers appear to be in training for the "Enquirer" or "Globe", but seem to have more class.  
Not fair to classify them with those two "RAGS" it is apperent the the "Onion" is satire.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>the the "Onion" is satire.

oh.. so it wasn't true about the dolphins?

[ February 17, 2006, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>oh.. so it wasn't true about the dolphins?

Dick. Please! Get help! It's not too late!

>The writers appear to be in training for the "Enquirer" or "Globe"

Hard to imagine what they're good for after writing for the Onion for a while. I suspect they're ruined.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Dick Allen,

It wasn't true. 

Nonetheless, it fooled me at first, because dolphins have been credited, by some scientists, with far greater intelligence than they ever had. And I thought it was high time the truth about the intelligence of dolphin, be told.

The reporters of "The Onion" are just writing comedy, for fun. They don't expect anyone to take them seriously.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Re: "The Onion".

It is a very funny parody newspaper. You can find a lot of information about it on the Internet. For instance:

The Onion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [New Window] 
The Onion's articles comment on current events, both real and imagined (an example ... In late August 2005, The Onion's companion website The Onion AV Club ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> _And I refuse to respond to any further, TOTALLY 
> IRRELEVANT COMMENTS & QUESTIONS_

I think that the basic problem here can be 
summarized as "too many pins, not enough angels".


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>I think that the basic problem here can be 
summarized as "too many pins, not enough angels". 

You just may be one of the pin pricks...


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

The fact is Ruth, despite your protestations, that you read that (obviously satirical) article about the dolphins, completely failed to spot that it was satire about SCIENCE no less, took it completely at face value and commented on it as follows:

>>It is, however, unfair to the dolphins to test them on land, and conclude that they are so incompetent as to be unable to find food nearby. Those dolphins were captured in the wild. They must have managed to find food in the wild before they were captured.<<

And you still expect us to take you seriously!

Remarkable.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Ruth has mentioned a few times she wont respond to further remarks.

Buckbee said this:



> One thing I have never seen bees do - waste time over pointless arguments about things they really can know nothing about.
> 
> So I'm taking a lesson from them, as of now.


Jim Fischer said this: 



> .....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:
> ...


....and still you three continue to stir the [feces] 

George said this:



> Dick. Please! Get help! It's not too late!


George, for the record, Im not going to respond to your mocking comments on my posts. Youve intimated that the lack of daylight is cause for what you deem my problem. Well, for your information mister, we are are nearly to the equinox. Soon there will be daylight for nearly 24 hours. What will you say then!? Will you say that my problem is caused by lack of sleep due the the length of sunlight?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>And you still expect us to take you seriously!

Hey! What about me? Can you all not take me seriously too?

Personally, I think the dolphin-thing was not so much illuminating as it was entertaining, an amusing diversion which this thread desperately needs- which all of us need, Ruth included. At least she was honest enough to own up to having been mistaken and even she got a laugh out of it at her own expense. I like that in a person. We can disagree on things but it's always important to remember that there's a fallible human being on each side of the issue.

What IS disturbing is the fact that Dick Allen thought it was real. Hang in there Dick, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/bcoct2000.htm 

http://www.behavior.org/autism/index.cfm?page=http%3A//www.behavior.org/autism/autism_riggott.cfm

http://skepdic.com/cleverhans.html

[ February 17, 2006, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi to Dick Allen, and to Buckbee:

I promised not to respond any further, but I am human, and often can not resist a provocations.

To Buckbee: I was initially taken in by the "dolphins story", as I explained, because I did not remember I had seen "The Onion" live, before, did not recognize it on my PC screen, and knew that dolphins are far less intelligent than, some scientists had claimed (incidentally, with great media hype).

Since someone disclosed the next day that the story was a hoax, I don't know for how long I would have continued to take it seriously;especially since no details were provided about the tests done, beyond the report that the dolphins on land, were unable to find the fish offered not too far away, which would most probably turn out to be the case, if the test would have ever been actually done.

I assure you, however, that if the story would have been of immediate concern to me, I would have searched everywhere for a published scientific report, and found very soon that none exists.

I just saw last night a summary report based on a publication in latest issue of the journal Science, that rats understand causality. This is of immediate concern to me. The site where I saw the report (Science news), accepts comments. I, therefore, immediately submitted a comment, stating that based only on the brief summary, the results seem easily explainable without attributing to the rats any ability to understand causality. I also immediately checked, Online, the latest issue of Science, where I have free access only to Abstract. The Abstract provided even less information than the summary I had seen. But I got there the e-mail address of the lead author, and immediately e-mailed him a request for a pdf; which I have already received, but have not yet had a chance to read.

Anyone can be fooled, depending on the circumstances. I can't remember who said that "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time. But you can not fool all the people all the time!"

Remember that at one time everyone, including Wenner, and me, were fooled by the story about the honeybee DL. In fact, I was taught about it by my animal behavior professors, as the greatest discovery ever made in Animal Behavior. And the very reputation of the professors who taught me that, seemed reason enough to take it very seriously. Since I found out a few years later, thanks to Wenner's work, that we had all been deluded, I am actually furious, and I now check any new claim that honeybees have a DL, and there is a new one every few years, much more carefully than I would have bothered to do before. And, sooner, or later, I discover what is wrong with the study underlying the claim.

For instance, there is a study by Bosch (1957), who "proved' that honeybee-recruits use DL information by using foragers that have one "dialect", and recruits that have a different "dialect". His results seem to show that recruits were fooled by the foragers that were using a different "dialect". BY then, I had no doubt that there had to be something wrong. I read and re-read the report about half a dozen times, before I finally discovered what was wrong. 

The study included a set of direction-test, and a set of distance-tests, done with foragers and recruits of the same honeybee-strain (same dialect"), and the results of those two sets were easy to explain by use of odor alone all along. But the third set, with the different "dialects" stymied me completely; until I noticed that all the tests in the first two sets lasted exactly 2 hrs. The tests in the 3rd set lasted close to 2 hrs., but never exactly 2 hrs. Instead they lasted 2 hrs. plus, or minus 15 min. Each test was followed by the complimentary test, i.e. if foragers of strain A were tested with recruits of strain B, this was followed by a test using foragers of strain B and recruits of strain A. Such a pair of tests was always done using an identical arrangement of stations for the two tests, But the duration of the two tests was never identical.

It, then, became obvious to me that the duration of tests in the 3rd set was not predetermined; which could easily have given the experimenter (who was in contact with observers that captured and counted all new-arrivals at all stations), to terminate a test when he worked for close to two hours, and accidentally obtained what he assumed o be the correct results, because he already "knew' that honeybees have a DL. (I won't explain here why, when the total ample of new-arrivals is relatively small, the distributions of new-arrivals keep changing at random, and one can, then, easily obtain the "correct" results by sheer accident.)

I tried to publish in a serious refereed journal, but my article was rejected, because I had presumably "accused the author, without evidence, of un-ethical behavior".

This is plain B>S. It was undoubtedly the author who managed to unintentionally delude himself. I challenged the editor to provide an acceptable explanation for the different durations of the tests only in the 3rd set. I said, I was even prepared to accept that all the tests that lasted less than 2 hrs. were interrupted by a sudden, unexpected rain, at least an hour and 3/4 of an hour before the full 2hrs. But, how could he explain the tests that lasted more than 2 hrs.? This was to no avail!

And this was how I gradually became disgusted with editors & referees of prestigious refereed journals.

Incidentally, discovering what was wrong with the 3rd set was not easy at all,, because the fault was something I could not have even expected. And as a result I did not even notice it until I read the article over and over again, and suddenly noticed the different durations of the tests, and said to myself: "Hey, what is this doing here?!"

The fact that my critique of the claim by Bosch was rejected, does not really matter any more, because I have since then been able to discredit in one fell swoop, all claims that are based on the interpretations of data regarding distributions of new-arrivals, because I have been able to show that DL supporters invariably interpret such data on the basis of erroneous expectations from both possibility, i.e. from the DL hypothesis, and the "odor alone all along" hypothesis.

Correcting errors, and especially admitting and correcting ones own errors, is one of the most important requirement of any serious and responsible scientist. Nonetheless, DL opponents have never been able to get any staunch DL supporters. My guess is that some of them have been "brain-washed" to believe that honeybees have a DL, beyond the point of no return. Others may be convinced that all they need to do is work harder, and they will find the ever-elusive evidence for that. Ans still others may already realize that their whole scientific careers and life's work is at stake, and prefer to continue the "sham!"

You just got a good lesson about science.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Dick Allen:

You do not need to behave like honeybees. As a human you were endowed with better than a "pea-brain", or a "bee-brain". Use it!

Re "The Onion": Different people have a different idea about what's funny, and what isn't. I think most of the reports I have seen in "The Onion" are hilarious; even though they are sometimes "off color".


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

"Pathological lying" is an addiction.

Want to learn more about it? See the movie: "CATCH ME If YOU CAN".


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

OK, Ruth. I just ran what you said to me through my corpora pedunculata.  

I'm on your side in this dance language thing, btw.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Dick Allen,

I have never before seen this URL that you provided:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/bcoct2000.htm 
It is hilarious. Tells it "exactly like it is!" Looks like it was lifted right out of "The Onion". It was submitted by someone involved with honeybees, whose name is Joe Trainor. But it is made to look as if it was posted by Wenner. I don't know whether Trainor could legally do that, or whether Wenner is at all aware of it?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>My guess is that some of them have been "brain-washed" to believe that honeybees have a DL, beyond the point of no return.

Clearly then, you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed. That sums up the level of your argument nicely.

Enough is enough. I know there is intelligent life on this board, but it's not here.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

as amusing as this thread has been, I've tried to stay out of it, but you guy's might find this interesting
I have temporary access to the journals at the local university and found these

http://www.drobbins.net/bee's/wernner/

there's 2 articles there
each is some photocopies of pages out of journals
the article don't start at the top of each page
my interest in the subject is zero so I haven't read them, I'm just playing around with how to search the available info

Dave


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

No Ruth, the article cited on P.O.V. was not from the Onion. In fact, if I'm recalling correctly, five or six years ago an article on the "bee alphabet" actually ran in either 'Bee Culture' or 'Amercian Bee Journal'.

[ February 17, 2006, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To drobbins'

The articles you copied are an open debate between v. Frisch on the one hand and Wenner & Johnson, on the other hand, in Science of 1967, following the earlier, first challenge, of v. Frisch's DL hypothesis, by Johnson (1967), and by Wenner (1967), also published in Science.

This is very, very old stuff. in fact, it was the firs and only direct debate between v. FRisch and Wenner's team. And Wenner & Wells add more about it in their 1990 book. In that book they show that the explanations (pretexts) v. Frisch brought up to explain why they did not obtain the results he expected from use of the DL, are unacceptable.

There has been much more to be said against the DL hypothesis since then. But what Wenner's team did in 1967, should have sufficed to close the lid on the DL hypothesis. However, since you are not interested, I shall skip all further details.
I adamantly refuse to go through it all over again.

I don't know how the name Wernner got in. It probably got mixed up with Wenner.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To buckbee,

First you quote my statement that SOME DL supporters have been "brainwashed" beyond the "point of no return". Then you conclude that I insinuated that EVERYBODY who disagree with me, i.e. ALL DL supporters must have been "brainwashed" beyond the "point of no return".

Clearly, one of us can not think straight, and I am not the one!


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Dick Allen,

I didn't think the article was from 'The Onion", only that it was in "The Onion" style of parody.
I can in no way believe that the writer intended any one to take him seriously.

Your URL opens to Bee World, so this is apparently where the article appeared.

I hate to bother Wenner, because I know he is tereibly busy right now. Besides, the article appeared in the year 2000,i.e. long ago. So Wenner probably saw it, or was informed about it by someone else. I am going to drop him a very short e-mail about, anyway.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Ruth,

I was simply trying to make information available to folks on the board who might not otherwise have access to it.
If you have access to other, more current articles, perhaps you would care to post them as well
if you are not familiar with how to do this you can email them to me at
drobbins at drobbins dot net 
and I will be glad to put them online for you

Dave


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

This in not the correct

I promised not to respond any further, but I am human, and often can not resist a provocations

This is right. but Im a women and cant resist a provocation.


You just got a good lesson about science. 

Im telling you, your wasting lots of space on this nice forum.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To drobbins,

Nah, thanks for the offer.

There are dozens and dozens of papers on this subject.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Axtmann,

I know I am for the most part wasting my time in this forum.

I dont know of any woman who is a wemen.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

I have not read this entire post but here goes:

the prickly one sezs (first post):
I am probably breaking netiquette rules by posting here a portion of a personal message, but, under the circumstances, I couldn't care less.

tecumseh questions:
so you are willing to break ethical/moral rules to win a point? humm...

then prickly pear sezs:
I chose the nickname "Prickly pear", because I have been, for very many years, "a thorn in the side" of DL supporters, as well as various other scientists who delude themselves (and then editors of serious scientific journals & their referees, most of the rest of the scientific community, and the general public) into into believing they had experimentally confirmed that various other animals have various incredible, genetically predetermined ("instinctive") capabilities, such as the claim that various subhumans use a magnetic compass (the MC hypothesis.

tecumseh replies:
so let me get this right mizz pear. are you saying that you have concluded that animals (and yes humans if you classify them as animals) do not have genetically predetermined capabilities?

tecumseh take on the name prickly pear:
actually you do not eat a prickly pear except for it's fruit. it's fruit is most often called an apple on this side of the rio grande. I suspect that the name pricly pear is derived from the tenacious nature of the plant in extremely severe habitat. it has a beautiful flower in the late spring that is quite attractive to the honeybee.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

tecumseh says "it has a beautiful flower in the late spring that is quite attractive to the honeybee."

KB queries: Is is a significant nectar source, i.e. does anyone collect it as a single floral source honey?

Keith


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Tecumse,

I couldn't care less about breaking Netiquette rules, under circumstances where I consider it MORALLY AND ETHICALLY quite proper to do so. I explained the circumstances, which a little "meanie" like you deliberately ignores. And I couldn't care less about YOUR opinion on this matter, either. 

You got it perfectly right. I take it for granted(on the basis of what I consider more than sufficient evidence), that all individual traits (including BEHAVIORAL traits) of all living organisms (including humans ) develop ontogenetically (in the individual organism), under INSEPARABLE effects of BOTH genes & environment. Moreover, I consider any biologists who refuse to accept that, retarded biologists. And I couldn't care less about YOUR opinion on this matter, either.

I am not sure which side of the Rio Grande you live on. I said that my supermarket (right in the midst of Manhattan, NYC) sells cans of sliced (and possibly also pickled, I don't remember exactly),stripes of prickly pear PADS, for human consumption. And fresh pads are sold here in Hispanic supermarkets.

Obviously, some humans have different opinions than YOURS, on many different issues.

So, buzz off, Mizzter!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

The sort of response that endears NYers to the rest of the nation.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> all individual traits (including BEHAVIORAL
> traits) of all living organisms (including humans) 
> develop ontogenetically (in the individual 
> organism), under INSEPARABLE effects of BOTH 
> genes & environment

So much for the entire field of Behavioral Genetics!

I guess that everyone in the field is simply "retarded", 
as claimed by Prickly-Ruth. Its a good thing, as 
gainful employment for those with double-digit IQs
holding PhDs can be problematic.









[ February 18, 2006, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> the prickly one sezs (first post):
>> I am probably breaking netiquette rules by 
>> posting here a portion of a personal message, 
>> but, under the circumstances, I couldn't care 
>> less.

> tecumseh questions:
> so you are willing to break ethical/moral rules 
> to win a point? humm...

No, willing to ignore the standards of polite
society while making _no point at all_, resulting 
in a lot of extra work for moderators, who are 
forced to edit out the more libelous language 
used, and delete selected postings that are
"felony class" violations of the usual codes of
behavior for humans in polite society.

This may well have "_developed ontogenetically
(in the individual organism), under INSEPARABLE
effects of BOTH genes & environment_", even
though the behavior is so consistent, one is
prompted to wonder if it is not merely the
unfortunate result of a very bad hand of genetic
cards being dealt.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

The contents of this post have been deleted by a board moderator.
This message serves as a warning to the author.
------------
We at BeeSource reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever.
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the BeeSource Bulletin Board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree to be civil. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BeeSource.com.
You agree to abide by the wishes of the board moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules. Refusal to cooperate with board moderators or to abide by these rules is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.
-------------

[ February 19, 2006, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Dick Allen,

Turns out that Wenner knew of the published biting parody of the DL hypothesis, for which you provided an URL. The author of the parody is a friend of his!


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

mizz rosein adds:
And fresh pads are sold here in Hispanic supermarkets.

tecumseh adds:
these are called nopales (no-pal-es), they are not prickley pear cactus at all. vival la difference as a matter of fact. it would be curios to see someone here attempt to sell prickly pear cactus as nopales. comical I would say since you must firmly grip the cactus to slice and dice that little jewel. 

and for mizz troll I should add that yes in the regards to bioliogy and behavior my information is extremely limited. but since I am married to a very fine lady that did work years ago with one of the fellows that won the nobel with the folks in question, I thought I might run mizz troll thought past her. glad to see that you saved me that double waste of time.

good day mizz troll.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Tecumseh,

I copied the following from a link to Nopales, on the Internet:
--------------------------------------
Something delicious beneath the prickles
Article Contents

What is it? Recipe Links 
Nopales History Other Links 
How to Harvest and Prepare Nutrition 
How To Eat Medicinal Uses 
How To Store Basic Cooking Method 
Prickly Pear Fruit Featured Recipe 
Peeling Prickly Pear Fruit Other Articles 
Where To Buy Nopal spine removal tools 

What is it?
The plant is the genus Opuntia from the Cactaceae family, or what is commonly known as the Prickly Pear Cactus. Nopal means cactus in Spanish and Nopales is term for "cactus stem". The term Nopalitos refers to the pads once they are cut up and prepared for eating. There are two food crops derived from the prickly pear cactus. One is the "nopalitos" which are the cactus pads and the other crop is the prickly "pear" or fruit of the cactus. 
------------------------------
As for the "Nobel winners in question", with all due respect to your very fine lady, I am sure, I studied with their supporters, and opponents, and, then, made up my own mind.
-------------------------------
So, buzz off again, Mizzter!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The main trick here is to remove the spines
from any/all "prickly pear", like this:

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004658;p=6#000146


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To Sqkcrk,

I am entitled to use my own brains, and rely on my own judgements. And I certainly do not represent all NYCers. No one person ever did, or could, do that.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

The only worth-while trick is to avoid being a "trickster".


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

I might have already pointed that out in this forum. But, I shall repeat it.

Genes predetermine a vast range of Potential development, as well as what is outside that range. They never, alone, determine what out of the range of POTENTIAL development will actually materialize. What will ACTUALLY materialize is determined by INSEPARABLE effects of BOTH genes & environment.

Just consider that most (though, by no means all), individual organisms begin life as a one-celled fertilized egg. It is, however, always possible to apply environmental conditions that would snuff the life of that individual at that very initial stage. Obviously, it is not genetically predetermined that the specific individual should develop into anything beyond the one-celled fertilized egg with which its individual life began. (The same considerations apply, irrespective of the form in which an individual organism starts its individual life. It is never genetically predetermined, that this individual should develop into anything beyond that.)

Any behavioral-geneticist worth his mettle must take this extremely simple, basic, and obvious conclusion for granted. Those who do not understand even that much, are, unavoidably, in trouble.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

Hi All,

Re the inseparable effects of both genes & environment in individual development. One can bring an almost endless number of examples to illustrate that. Honeybees, however, provide a particularly good example.

Any beekeeper knows that honeybees come in 3 basic types, males (drones), that are usually haploid (developing from unfertilized eggs), and females that develop from fertilized eggs, and are either queens, or workers. (Under special conditions, a worker can develop into an egg-laying worker, that cannot mate, and produces only male-offspring. Such an egg-laying worker, may even continue to forage.)

Any beekeeper knows that bees of all the 3 basic forms: drones, workers, and queens, share some traits in common. (Basically, they "all look like honeybees".) Every beekeeper, however, knows that bees in each of those 3 groups also differ considerably from bees in the other 2 groups, in very many morphological, anatomical, physiological, and behavioral traits.

Every beekeeper knows, in addition, that queens develop from the same fertilized eggs, as do workers, and that (when the need arises), the adult workers can "manipulate" environmental conditions to cause a very young larva to develop into a queen, instead, of a regular worker. A queen can, however, never be grown out of a male larva.

So, there you have it all.

A fertilized honeybee egg has the potential to develop into a queen, or a regular worker (or an egg-laying, foraging worker). Genes alone, obviously do not predetermine into what kind of a female-bee the egg will develop. The environmental conditions "manipulated" by the adult workers, obviously play a role in that. The effects of those environmental conditions are, however, never separable from the effects of the genes. This is obvious, because the adult workers can never raise a queen out of a haploid, unfertilized egg (whose genetic makeup does not include the potential of developing into any kind of a female at all.)

Case closed!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>This is obvious, because the adult workers can never raise a queen out of a haploid, unfertilized egg

How do you explain Thelytoky in light of that statement? It had me scratching my head when I first read about it- still does actually









George-


----------



## Ronnie Elliott (Mar 24, 2004)

Boy's, I saw a small green leaf on a tree this morning, with ice on my windshield, and a high of 34-degrees forcasted for today, but getting warmer tonight, ah.. ha. How many more weeks until spring? Cabin fever is getting to you norther boys.


----------



## Ronnie Elliott (Mar 24, 2004)

Northern boys, typical north of the Mason-Dixion line expected attitudes. Let's all mosey out to my farm, and sit in fromt of the cast iron wood stove, and watch for those elusive white tails trophys, and all bee friends.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

That would be fine as long as no one gets dragged behind a pick up truck.


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

"This is obvious, because the adult workers can never raise a queen out of a haploid, unfertilized egg

How do you explain Thelytoky in light of that statement? It had me scratching my head when I first read about it- still does actually"

Thelytoky would mean a clonal, diploid egg, so the statement is correct even taking into consideration parthenocarpy. In other words, no one has to explain anything.


----------



## rosinbio (Jun 5, 2005)

To any one interested in the Nopales.

Here ismore about them, from the same link I had used before:
-----------------------------------
How To Harvest and Prepare Nopalitos (Nopales)
Commercially two sizes of nopales pads are harvested which is small, (less than 10 cm long) or (medium less than 20 cm, about 100g). The Nopales leaf pads are usually harvested between spring and the end of summer. Select thin pads no longer than 20cm or 8 inches. Make sure to wear heavy gloves to harvest the pads yourself. The pad will snap off easily or you can use a large knife to sever the stem. Beware, there are large and fine thorns so be sure to keep your hands protected. To prepare the pads remove the thorns and the "eyes" with a vegetable peeler or a small paring knife or this new gadget designed just for spine removal. Wash the pads well with cool water and peel or trim off any blemished or discolored areas. Slice the pads in long slices or in pieces or leave whole depending on the dish you will prepare.

How To Eat and Use Nopales
Nopales is a vegetable that can be eaten grilled or boiled. Over cooking may give them a slightly "slimy" texture you may want to avoid. Frequently the nopales are added to eggs, or as a vegetable in soups, chilies or a filling in a tortilla. 

The best preparation we have tried is to prepare the nopal leaves (remove spines) then grill over hot coals till tender and slightly browned. Then slice into nopalitos strips and toss with a squeeze of lime and a little bit of olive oil. They are delicious. There is also a local restaurant that grills portobello mushrooms along with the nopales an slices both and serves them tossed together.
-------------------------------
The canned ones my NYC supermarket sells are very "slimy". So, it is interesting to learn that if you don't overcook them they don't turn "slimy" at all.


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

I am closing this thread as it has drifted into areas not related to the original topic.


----------

