Maud bees

[Rosie]

That might be a fair comment Jon but remember that BIBBA just wants to help native and near native bees. They are happy for their members to support these bees in any way they feel appropriate for their area and expertise. If that message is not getting across I will try to address it.

Steve

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Jon;22517]We have some of the same issues in NIHBS over issues like wing morphometry, but have set up a science committee to try and clarify them.

Hi Jon

What are the issues that you have with wing morphometry?

[Jon]

Whether it coincides with underlying DNA.
That's not a given.
The science needs to be checked out rather than everyone adopting entrenched positions.

[Peter]

Whether it coincides with underlying DNA.
That's not a given.
The science needs to be checked out rather than everyone adopting entrenched positions.

Have you read this one:
http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/Stan...Apis-mellifera

Particularly in section 3:

'A high degree of consistency between wing morphometry and molecular information
has been demonstrated by Miguel et al. (2010).'

Has this work already been done? Has BIBBA wasted and are NIBHS wasting money on research by not doing the homework?

I suspect that Gavin may appear quite soon!

[James O]

http://poly-hive.co.uk/recourses/beg...0s-beekeeping/

It is an interesting video though does not feature Bernard.

PH

Thanks, saw those but didn't realise that was what I was looking for.

[Jon]

Have you read this one:

Peter I have posted a link to that Meixner Coloss paper here at least twice in the last fortnight!

I think you might have the wrong end of the stick about that Miguel paper. That paper is mainly looking at the differences between Apis mellifera iberensis and African bees.

ABSTRACT Traditional morphometrics, allozymes, and mitochondrial data have supported a close relationship between the M branch subspecies
A. m. iberiensis and the North African subspecies (A branch). However, studies using nuclear DNA markers have revealed a clear distinction
between the latter and the two European M branch subspecies. In help resolve this paradox, we analyzed 663 colonies from six
European and African subspecies. A geometric morphometrics approach was applied to the analysis of wing shape, and the results
were compared with data of six microsatellite loci. Both data sets were found to be highly consistent and corroborated a marked
divergence of West European subspecies from North African ones. This supports the hypothesis that the presence of the African
lineage mitotype in Iberian honey bee populations is likely the consequence of secondary introductions, with a minimal African
influence within the current Iberian genetic background. Wing geometric morphometrics appears more appropriate than mitochondrial
DNA analysis or traditional morphometrics in the screening and identification of the Africanization process.

The problem with wing morphomety is the effect described by Robin Moritz in the paper I linked to last week.

[Rosie]

Thanks for reminding us of this Peter. I will have to read it properly when I have more time but on scanning it quickly I spotted this:

"Most interestingly, in recent comprehensive analyses based on nuclear markers (SNPs), and including representative samples of 14 subspecies (Whitfield et al., 2006), the resulting groupings largely reflected the traditional four lineages postulated on the basis of morphology."

It seems that early DNA work threw doubt on morphometry but later studies reversed it so that it now largely supports morphometry.

SNPs is the method that Bangor University told me they were employing in their search for the ideal Welsh bee but I don't know much about their results or even whether they stuck to their original intention of looking for good AMM specimens. We amateurs in the area are sticking with morphometry and behaviour for now as we don't have resources to use DNA methods.

[Peter]

The problem with wing morphomety is the effect described by Robin Moritz in the paper I linked to last week.

Hi Jon

Apologies - I have not had much time to read everything carefully recently - and have saved a number of papers for reading later.

So now I must ask: has Moritz already done the research that BIBBA are currently funding?

[Jon]

Moritz found that the carnica population in Germany which has 'perfect' carnica wing vein pattern is not in fact pure Carnica and has AMM genetics in it as well.
This Moritz paper is critical as it explains the limitations of using morphometry.

Morphometry is a powerful tool for a survey in an area where noone has used it as part of the selection criteria but once it has been used you are going to get the sought after wing pattern irrespective of the underlying DNA.

Moritz suggests
(a) abandoning wing morphometry altogether or (b) switching to different morphometric variables every couple of years. There are more than 30.

Read the para on P58 about biometrical analysis.

[Rosie]

Jon I don't see that as a criticism of wing morphometry. It just demonstrates that it's unwise to rely on it solely for too many generations. I don't know anyone who does anyway that even if they did in the past. In fact most strains have never been assessed let alone, selected.

Steve