Old ABJ Quotes

[Michael Bush]

A few corrections:

>Eighteen days after the egg destined to become The Queen was first laid, this Virgin Queen emerges from her cell.

Generally 16 days, in hot weather 15 days.  In cold weather maybe 17 days... not 18 days.

>Her very first job is generally to kill any other potential challengers; an ?Old Queen?, any new Virgin Queens or any Virgin Queens still in their cells. There can be only one Queen Bee in any hive. Our beautiful, strong Virgin Queen, now with her followers, rips open any other queen cells and stings the occupant to death. Her loyal subjects continue to rip down the queen cell and haul the unborn carcass out of the hive. Should another Queen be walking around inside the hive, our Queen hunts her down and they fight to the death of one of them.  This demonstrates to her subjects her suitability to be ?Their Queen?.

She usually doesn't go after the old mated queen, just the virgins.  The old queen often is still there months later.

>About three to five days after emerging

Well, somewhere between 3 and 21 days... but usually about 3 to 5.

> on a sunny day with low wind, the new Virgin Queen will take her ?Nuptial Flight?. She?s on the make. She will find a ?drone congregation area?, a ?DCA? ? a place high in the air, where male (drone) bees from many hives just hang out waiting for Virgins to fly by (sounds familiar). Over possibly several days she will mate with as many as 20 drones in mid-air, gathering as much genetic material as she will need for her entire life (up to six million sperm!).

The latest numbers I've heard say up to 40...

>A drone can only mate once! After the copulation the Queen rips off the drone?s endophallus (his dooey), tosses his dying body to the ground below

I wouldn't say she tosses it, but he falls to the ground for sure...

>, and makes way for the next drone. This can happen up to twenty times, until she?s satisfied! This is serious stuff! Oh! She keeps all those dooies!

No, she doesn't keep them any, actually.  She doesn't remove them, but the next drone pulls the last one out and then loses his.  When she gets back the workers remove the last one.

>As this is all going on, back at the hive, her subject bees are Nasonoving, raising their abdomens and fanning their wings. This is done to blow a plume of pheromone out into the air to guide their beautiful Queen home after? you know what. They?re cheering her on.

Maybe they are cheering her on.  Yes they are guiding her back.

>Well, the now Fertile Queen comes home, a little tired, but glowing, and demonstrates her success by showing all those dooies to her loyal subjects. The girls are very impressed. Long Live the Queen!

The last one, yes.  The rest of the "dooies", no.

[salvo]

Thank you Michael.

Next time I speak in front of ad valorum tax professionals I will hand out your eratta sheet. They'll really appreciate your *factual corrections*. 

It's sorta like PBS vs The Comedy Channel. Alan Dershowitz v F. Lee Bailey. 

Sal

[The15thMember]

ABJ, Vol. 1, No. 2, Feb. 1861

The first article in this edition deals with dispelling the idea that bees other than the queen lay drone eggs.  I found it interesting in this article that the bees that supposedly were the "drone-mothers" are described as "a glossy-soot color, sometimes even coal black" and that these bees had somehow "lost their hair".  The article didn't draw any single conclusion as to the cause of these bees looking like this, since the purpose of the article was simply to prove that these bees are normal workers, and not pseudo-queens who lay only drone eggs, although the author did offer several potential explanations including inordinately humid conditions and robbers who'd been attacked in other hives.  We have modern evidence to indicate that such bees are sick, and some of the author's evidence supports such a conclusion, but I found it interesting that such bees were seen long before varroa, since we often associate these shiny black bees with viruses.  Obviously varroa transmit viruses which results in sick bees, so the link is not surprising, but I think sometimes we forget that there were sick bees before varroa, even if the viruses didn't cause colonies to collapse like they do with varroa today. 

[Michael Bush]

>The first article in this edition deals with dispelling the idea that bees other than the queen lay drone eggs.

https://bushfarms.com/beeslayingworkers.htm#multiple

Well, actually bees other than the queen DO lay drone eggs.  Certainly not ALL the drone eggs, but they lay ONLY drone eggs.  A queenright hive has about 50 or so laying workers in it who lay nothing but drone eggs...

See page 9 of "The Wisdom of the Hive"

"Although worker honey bees cannot mate, they do possess ovaries and can produce viable eggs; hence they do have the potential to have male offspring (in bees and other Hymenoptera, fertilized eggs produce females while unfertilized eggs produce males). It is now clear, however, that this potential is exceedingly rarely realized as long as a colony contains a queen (in queenless colonies, workers eventually lay large numbers of male eggs; see the review in Page and Erickson 1988). One supporting piece of evidence comes from studies of worker ovary development in queenright colonies, which have consistently revealed extremely low levels of development. All studies to date report far fewer than 1 % of workers have ovaries developed sufficiently to lay eggs (reviewed in Ratnieks 1993; see also Visscher 1995a). For example, Ratnieks dissected 10,634 worker bees from 21 colonies and found that only 7 had moderately developed egg (half the size of a completed egg) and that just one had a fully developed egg in her body."

If you do the math, in a normal booming queenright hive of 100,000 bees that's 70 laying workers. In a laying worker hive it's much higher.

So while some of the ideas (hairless bees being the ones laying nothing but drones) may or may not be true, there are bees in the hive that are not the queen who lay nothing but drones...

Interestingly, Huber writes about the hairless black bees (published in 1814) and assumes they are from somewhere else.  Actually they were probably either robbers from another hive who have had their hair pulled by the guard bees, or bees suffering from a virus.  Either way, Huber observes that they are not allowed in the hive by the guard bees.

[The15thMember]

>The first article in this edition deals with dispelling the idea that bees other than the queen lay drone eggs.

https://bushfarms.com/beeslayingworkers.htm#multiple

Well, actually bees other than the queen DO lay drone eggs.  Certainly not ALL the drone eggs, but they lay ONLY drone eggs.  A queenright hive has about 50 or so laying workers in it who lay nothing but drone eggs...

See page 9 of "The Wisdom of the Hive"

"Although worker honey bees cannot mate, they do possess ovaries and can produce viable eggs; hence they do have the potential to have male offspring (in bees and other Hymenoptera, fertilized eggs produce females while unfertilized eggs produce males). It is now clear, however, that this potential is exceedingly rarely realized as long as a colony contains a queen (in queenless colonies, workers eventually lay large numbers of male eggs; see the review in Page and Erickson 1988). One supporting piece of evidence comes from studies of worker ovary development in queenright colonies, which have consistently revealed extremely low levels of development. All studies to date report far fewer than 1 % of workers have ovaries developed sufficiently to lay eggs (reviewed in Ratnieks 1993; see also Visscher 1995a). For example, Ratnieks dissected 10,634 worker bees from 21 colonies and found that only 7 had moderately developed egg (half the size of a completed egg) and that just one had a fully developed egg in her body."

If you do the math, in a normal booming queenright hive of 100,000 bees that's 70 laying workers. In a laying worker hive it's much higher.

So while some of the ideas (hairless bees being the ones laying nothing but drones) may or may not be true, there are bees in the hive that are not the queen who lay nothing but drones...

Interestingly, Huber writes about the hairless black bees (published in 1814) and assumes they are from somewhere else.  Actually they were probably either robbers from another hive who have had their hair pulled by the guard bees, or bees suffering from a virus.  Either way, Huber observes that they are not allowed in the hive by the guard bees.

Sorry, poor phraseology on my part.  What I should have said was, "dispelling the idea that the queen does not lay drone eggs".  That's interesting information from Seeley and Huber though.  I wonder how often those worker-laid drone eggs actually grow to full term adults. 

[Michael Bush]

> I wonder how often those worker-laid drone eggs actually grow to full term adults.

A good test would be how often do you find drone comb above the excluder.  Not often.  But then the egg police might be more likely to remove them if they aren't in the brood nest proper.

[The15thMember]

The Origin and Nature of Honey Dew  In the annual report, for 1855-6, of the Royal Agricultural and Industrial School, of Landau, in the Palatinate, Mr. Th. Gumbel communicates the following results of the investigations made by him respecting the origin and nature of honey dew.

This was a doozy of an article.  As the author has enumerated his points, I'm going to quote them one by one and leave my blow-by-blow reactions underneath each.  Buckle up! 

1. Honey dew always makes its appearance when particular species of plants have developed their blossoms.

Okay.  Not true of pine honey, but whatever.

2. The ripe pollen-dust falls not only on the stigma of the blossom, but is generally in large part scattered on the leaves and other succulent portions of the plant, as well as on those of neighboring plants.

A bit of a broad generalization, but not untrue for many plants.

3. If the pollen-dust thus scattered becomes exposed to dew, it will rapidly produce a carposma.  This term designates a peculiar vegetation of the pollen-grains, in consequence whereof, from a portion of them, which were already contained in various forms and sizes in the anthers, a gummy-granular substances exudes.  Others produce so-called pollen-tubes; and others again generate within themselves, mature and extrude, still more diminutive grains.  What the original pollen-grains thus undergo in this three-told manna, is in turn undergone by the young brood also.  The ultimate result is a mixt mass of pollen-grains and successive generations of brood cells, which finally decompose and disappear as cellules resembling yeast cells or mould sporules. 

What????  Could this make any less sense?    This guy is German, so maybe the translation is partially at fault for making this so terribly wordy. 

4. If this carposma be brought under influences more than simply propitious to its development, a luxuriant growth is superinduced; and the cellules, instead of undergoing decomposition are converted into so-called mycelium filaments, and are then capable of originating fungous organisms

  I think this guy needs to be introduced to the KISS method.  So if you have pollen grains appearing to decompose and then grow something that looks like a fungus, I wonder what could be happening?  Could it be that it's just decomposing and growing a fungus?    No, that's not unnecessarily complicated enough to be correct. 

5. When the carposma has been formed in a globule of dew, it fixes and retains by its vegetative power, the humid atmospheric depositions; and we have the phenomenon of honey dew in the proper sense of the word, as a clammy substance dropping from leaf to leaf.

 
Hahaha!    I'm just dying of laughter by this point!  This sounds like the scientific discoveries made by Laputa in Gulliver's Travels!  It's nothing but huge words and sentences making something very simple very complicated.

6. Honey dew as found on the leaves of plants, is precisely similar to the nectar of flowers, which, as in the cup-shaped sepals of the Linden, does not exist already when the blossom expands, but is produced only after the pollen-dust has fallen into them and been changed to carposma.

Uh-huh.  Sure. 

7. In the honey gathered by the bees, the carposma producing it--that is, the pollen-grains of the species of plants from which it was gathered--may readily be traced.

Which doesn't require any of this himming and hawing with "carposmas". 

8. Honey dew proper is not the product of apides, which have commonly bee supposed to secrete and extrude it as a saccharine matter, covering therewith the foliage of the plants and trees.

Oh no!  He makes this blanket claim, and then doesn't even back it up.  He just states it as fact without any proof! 

This article continues in a similar manner for 17 points, during which the author continually maintains that the more obvious and simpler answer CANNOT be the right one, because his experiment supposedly PROVES it.  It's funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.  I can think of some modern scientific publications who are slave to the same fallacies. 

[Michael Bush]

I think he's just trying to make people accept honey dew, which is less likely if they think it's aphid poop...

[Ben Framed]

I think he's just trying to make people accept honey dew, which is less likely if they think it's aphid poop...

Maybe so?   
People might more readily accept 'honey dew 'honey' if they examine, and can 'accept' honey itself, which is made from 'regurgitated' bee nectar! - WHAT?  lol
 
From Live Science:
"When a honeybee returns to the hive, it passes the nectar to another bee by 'regurgitating' the liquid into the other bee's mouth. This regurgitation process is repeated until the 'partially digested' nectar is 'finally' deposited into a honeycomb."




Food for thought:
Some; may knock certain bee 'products' made by the bees themselves, until they try them,,  lol.. While others may praise certain bee products when they do try them.
See the topic:
"Cotton Honey, A Taste Of Texas"
<<on: June 01, 2020, 06:42:31 pm >>

What is the old saying about bees? "The Bees know best!" lol
Does this include the product made from Honey Dew which is widely know and accepted by the description of 'honey dew 'honey'
Do bees really know best? Some may argue, 'honey dew is not honey' because its not made from nectar as such.
Yet the 'bees' process this sweet 'product of nature' in the same manner they process honey made from nectar.

Thought the definition of 'honey' and 'honey dew 'honey' may be written otherwise, do the bees care what books say on this subject of honey dew? lol..

Phillip

PS
What is milk? What is cheese? What are eggs? Whoops, other subjects! lol.... 
(all in fun).....

[The15thMember]

I think he's just trying to make people accept honey dew, which is less likely if they think it's aphid poop...

Maybe so?   
People might more readily accept 'honey dew 'honey' if they examine, and can 'accept' honey itself, which is made from 'regurgitated' bee nectar! - WHAT?  lol
 
From Live Science:
"When a honeybee returns to the hive, it passes the nectar to another bee by 'regurgitating' the liquid into the other bee's mouth. This regurgitation process is repeated until the 'partially digested' nectar is 'finally' deposited into a honeycomb."

So true!  This article from Honey Bee Suite comes to mind. https://www.honeybeesuite.com/is-honey-made-from-bee-vomit-sure-why-not/

PS
What is milk? What is cheese? What are eggs? Whoops, other subjects! lol.... 
(all in fun).....

Cheese is a loaf of milk.   

[Ben Framed]

The15thMember
Cheese is a loaf of milk.   

    Yep!!!