# carniolan ecotypes???



## josethayil (Jul 17, 2008)

I keep carniolan bees and I heard that there are around 60 different ecotypes of carniolan bees and they show difference to each other. Can anyone here explain what are the main differences with different carniolan ecotypes and are they easy to notice?


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

josethayil said:


> I keep carniolan bees and I heard that there are around 60 different ecotypes of carniolan bees and they show difference to each other. Can anyone here explain what are the main differences with different carniolan ecotypes and are they easy to notice?


Hi Josethayil,
Have you been reading a Ruttner book? 

Has anyone seen in print any catalog of the Carniolan bee ecotypes?
Regional breeders would know the differences, but trying to contact them
thoughout the world would take some time.

Local adaptations to climate and localized selection by beekeepers would make the regional ecotypes differ, although if the breeders were breeding "within the type" they would not want their selections to fall outside of the standard Carni morphometric criteria.

Good Question!

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

The difference between an "ecotype" and a "race" or a "subspecies" is pretty small. This comes down to figurative hair-splitting, in my opinion. I doubt much difference exists within races or subspecies; that is to say, I think the differences among "ecotypes" (if they exist) within _Apis mellifera carnica_ must be much smaller than the differences among races.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I agree with Kieck. If not shown the color, most beekeepers would have difficulty discerning the differences between races in under a year, yet alone the diffences within a variety of bee. As it turns out, we probably distinguish the races based on a small number of pheontypic differences (such as color). If anyone knows the answer, I would be interested in hearing how much genetic varience their is between "races" as compared to within a given race of bee.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Kieck said:


> The difference between an "ecotype" and a "race" or a "subspecies" is pretty small. This comes down to figurative hair-splitting, in my opinion. I doubt much difference exists within races or subspecies; that is to say, I think the differences among "ecotypes" (if they exist) within _Apis mellifera carnica_ must be much smaller than the differences among races.


I think the poster was asking about differences in "ecotypes" within the context of several books that define regional adaptations of Honey Bees as "Ecotype".

The authors' classification scheme seems to run (from specific to general):
Line -> Strain -> Ecotype -> Race

They state that there are physiological and behavioral differences at the "Ecotype" level that differentiate populations from more general morphometric "Race" level characteristiscs.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

What's the difference between an "ecotype" and a "strain?"

What's the difference between an "ecotype" and a "race?"

And what's the difference between a "race" and a "subspecies?"

Not trying to argue the point, but I think this is splitting metaphorical hairs.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Such terms are likely to fall by the wayside now that reliable genetic markers and rapid transportation are becoming normal. As for behavioral adaptation vs. morphometrics vs. enzymatics: They all have an underlying genetic basis. Its just a matter of time before we start using more abstract, yet more predictive descriptors such as correlating phenotypes with chromosomal loci. This research is well underway in man, mice, corn, rice, arabodopsis and fruit flies. Now that the honey bee genome is sequenced, beekeepers are not far behind.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Kieck said:


> What's the difference between an "ecotype" and a "strain?"
> 
> What's the difference between an "ecotype" and a "race?"
> 
> ...


Sure. I agree. However these terms were used in book written in 1988 by one of the world's most respected honey bee breeding authorities. If you or I know there's not much difference in the terms, then there's no big deal. 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

*Selection is King!*



Aspera said:


> Such terms are likely to fall by the wayside now that reliable genetic markers and rapid transportation are becoming normal. As for behavioral adaptation vs. morphometrics vs. enzymatics: They all have an underlying genetic basis. Its just a matter of time before we start using more abstract, yet more predictive descriptors such as correlating phenotypes with chromosomal loci. This research is well underway in man, mice, corn, rice, arabodopsis and fruit flies. Now that the honey bee genome is sequenced, beekeepers are not far behind.


The original poster was interested in phenotypes because one can select
based on confirmation to phenotype (morphometrics). A large portion of the
world's successful bee breeders use simple selection based on
morphometrics as a foundation in their breeding programs.

The terminology is moot. Do biologists all agree on taxonomy based on a genetic
relatedness (Cladistics) versus a morphological relatedness? Certainly not.

Sequence data from the Honey Bee genome will be used to elucidate honey bee
genetics and biology, certainly. Sequence data doesn't substitute for
simple selction based on performance evaluation and confirmation to morphometrics.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> The original poster was interested in phenotypes because one can select
> based on confirmation to phenotype (morphometrics). A large portion of the
> world's successful bee breeders use simple selection based on
> morphometrics as a foundation in their breeding programs. -adam f


I think phenotypes are important in breeding programs, especially when looking at specific traits. However, look at the bees in any average hive, and you'll find a wide variation in phenotypes among the workers. And the phenotypes of the workers often do not match the phenotypes of their queen. For example, a cordovan queen may have a wide range of colors among her offspring, not all cordovan.

And that variation can be a very good thing. Also, color is not necessarily a good indicator of traits.

And I suspect you meant that breeders may use conformation to specific morphologies to select breeding stock, rather than morphometrics. Morphometrics is a study of measurements and angles and shape outlines expressed in the morphology of organisms. Most bee breeders have very little to no experience in morphometrics, nor would morphometrics have much practical application in breeding operations. Also, I would challenge anyone to determine ecotypes -- or any group below subspecies -- based on morphometrics.

I think you nailed it when you stated that simple selection based on performance evaluations is key for breeders.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Kieck said:


> I think phenotypes are important in breeding programs, especially when looking at specific traits. However, look at the bees in any average hive, and you'll find a wide variation in phenotypes among the workers. And the phenotypes of the workers often do not match the phenotypes of their queen. For example, a cordovan queen may have a wide range of colors among her offspring, not all cordovan.And that variation can be a very good thing. Also, color is not necessarily a good indicator of traits.


Hello Kieck,
I don't condone the use of color or morphometrics (you'll have to read the bee breeding books that BIBBA publishes--morphometrics is used widely in pure-race breeding--again not my term, theirs) in my breeding program. The phenotypes I concentrate on and select for are based on performance and the associated qualities promoting those performances. Example: one can have very light colored bees that act like a pure Carniolan hive over-wintering and one can have very dark bees that crank out brood and eat all their stores (Italian-like).



Kieck said:


> And I suspect you meant that breeders may use conformation to specific morphologies to select breeding stock, rather than morphometrics. Morphometrics is a study of measurements and angles and shape outlines expressed in the morphology of organisms. Most bee breeders have very little to no experience in morphometrics, nor would morphometrics have much practical application in breeding operations. Also, I would challenge anyone to determine ecotypes -- or any group below subspecies -- based on morphometrics.


The breeders in Europe use morphometrics. They have selection assays based on
measurments and angles. There are actually computer programs available used 
to analyze morphometric data. Check out the BIBBA breeding books. Interesting reading.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Kieck said:


> I Also, I would challenge anyone to determine ecotypes -- or any group below subspecies -- based on morphometrics.


You'll have to take that up with the bee breeders using Cubital Index and Discoidal Shift morphometry, for quantifiction of wing morphology, in selection.

You'd get to go to Europe!


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I would point out that a phenotype does not necessarily have to relate to color or size. The term may include behavioral phenotypes as well. We are not necessarily talking about just sequence data, which can be irrelevant. What I am referring to is correlating TRAITS with chromosomal LOCI. This idea goes back very far, such as to the work of Galton, has been re-discovered in modern times. The sequence itself is mostly useless junk and evolutionary leftovers. It is the association between genes, environments and trait expression (phenotype) that is at the heart of both breeding and genetics. The Weavers, who seem like good breeders, must understand this as they have helped to fund this work.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Aspera said:


> I would point out that a phenotype does not necessarily have to relate to color or size. The term may include behavioral phenotypes as well. We are not necessarily talking about just sequence data, which can be irrelevant. What I am referring to is correlating TRAITS with chromosomal LOCI.


Sure. VSH behavior is a perfect example. 



Aspera said:


> It is the association between genes, environments and trait expression (phenotype) that is at the heart of both breeding and genetics. The Weavers, who seem like good breeders, must understand this as they have helped to fund this work.


Agreed. However, testing and selection utilizing sound methodologies and cooperation between bee breeders is going to advance the progress in bee breeding before and after any chromosomal mapping in the bee genome.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

adamf said:


> testing and selection utilizing sound methodologies and cooperation between bee breeders is going to advance the progress in bee breeding before and after any chromosomal mapping in the bee genome.
> 
> www.vpqueenbees.com


Yes, testing and using queens in the apiary is what separates breeders from mere theorists


----------

