Ah yes, was this related to stuff about a bit of the IAPV sequence being shown to be incorporated into the genome of some honeybees - mooted to confer resistance to the virus by turning off a gene (allegedly). Either way it is fancy dan genetics rather than fruit or letters. Peter L Borst and some others got well worked up about it on beesource and beeline.Originally Posted by gavin
Hi All
Gavin, waffle all you like! But the 10 colony scenario postulated will culminate in massive inbreeding due to each generation of queens becoming more closely related.
That the reducing number of unrelated drones resulting from these inbred queens will rapidly reach critical mass is so patently obvious to the objective observer. Closed minds do not make for good research! Encouraging others to accept your dogma ‘as read’ is also not a commendable trait.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon, you are into Gavin's fruit bowl again – comparing apples with bananas. 10 colonies suffering 50% annual loss is not comparable to 50 colonies in a well managed situation.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
Eric, you will remember of course that a population only runs into problems when the number of sex alleles drops to 6 or less, and even then only in your hypothetical completely closed population.
.................................................. .........
So Jon, we have come full circle! You have now seen the light and demonstrated a goodly degree of objectivity. Speak to Gavin!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;
Nellie, Go with the flow by all means – but swimming against the stream can be intellectually rewarding. I find it so! Admitting to learning on the ‘swim’ is also good for the soul
Indeed we have. There was a time when the penny dropped but now you are back to not understanding again.
5 queens = possibly 10 sex alleles although it could of course be less, plus more represented in the spermathecae of the various queens.
And where is this hypothetical closed population?
Last edited by Jon; 19-03-2011 at 11:42 AM.
Eric, I try very hard not to go with the flow but to question and argue it at every opportunity. That doesn't make the flow wrong either.
That being said, in recent discussions generally around beekeeping, the flow has been demonstrably dishonest or at best naive so I'm happy to sit outside that group and pick holes it in. I know you're probably referring to my tendency to agree with Gavin and/or Jon here but that's simply because they tend to say more things that I agree with than most.
Last edited by Neils; 19-03-2011 at 09:33 AM.
Hi All
Jon wrote: Eric, you will remember of course that a population only runs into problems when the number of sex alleles drops to 6 or less, and even then only in your hypothetical completely closed population.
.................................................. ........
Yes, Jon I remember the great flurry of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo using the now legendary bowls of fruit and genetic experts working with thousands of genes and skiers with coloured cloth and all sort of devices; desperate to discredit the original hypothetical closed population postulation, which you are now conceding was correct.
Your question; - “And where is this hypothetical closed population” has connotations which I find quite revealing – coming from a person who purports to be scientifically orientated. We, H.sapiens, pride ourselves in supposedly being the only animal on the planet that is capable of employing abstract thought as a tool for solving problems and making decisions. Should your apparent inability to understand this concept worry me? The original postulation was made to highlight the potential dangers of a diminishing gene pool in any remote area with low honey bee colony density. Considering the interest and controversy which the thread stimulated – I deem the exercise to have been a success. A number of people have actually mailed me to thanks me for drawing attention to the issue of inbreeding.
To diversify – controversies are an inherent component of the human situation and there are many way of settling them. Better to discuss objectively or conduct objective independent research into cause and effect; much as the pending work of Dr Connolly and his team in the furtherance of our understanding of the present controversy surrounding pesticides and honey bee demise: instead of conducting some kind of vendetta to discredit the project. Perhaps all will soon be revealed!
Eric
Lordy lordy I didn't understand it all the first time.Have we not stepped back onto the same old roundabout again??
You are in good company then, for the man who published articles in the Scottish beekeeper starting with 160 sex alleles (when the total number is actually a maximum of 19) being reduced to zilch over 10 generations obviously didn't understand it either. (and still doesn't!)
The original hypothesis based on your article in the magazine and still highlighted on moraybeedinosaurs was rubbish at the time and is still rubbish.desperate to discredit the original hypothetical closed population postulation, which you are now conceding was correct.
19 alleles Eric, not 160!
Given that drones can easily travel 10 miles and Beowulf Cooper reckoned you needed 20 for complete isolation, can you name a few spots in Scotland where there is a beekeeper with just a couple of colonies 15 miles from the nearest beekeeper or feral colony. Maybe there are a lot of beekeepers on the Monroe peaks!The original postulation was made to highlight the potential dangers of a diminishing gene pool in any remote area with low honey bee colony density.
But remember the Alamo, I mean the alphabet. That was where the recently regurgitated penny first dropped, as the alphabet can never have more than 26 letters no matter how many sets of scrabble you mix together. If you want 160 letters or more you will have to start speaking Chinese or maybe double dutch - hmmm!legendary bowls of fruit and genetic experts working with thousands of genes and skiers with coloured cloth and all sort of devices
Hi All
GRIZZLY wrote:
Lordy lordy I didn't understand it all the first time.Have we not stepped back onto the same old roundabout again??
.................................................. ..................................
Hi Grizzly! As the weans in Glasgow are wont to say – It wis’nae me!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;
John wrote:
You are in good company then, for the man who published articles in the Scottish beekeeper starting with 160 sex alleles (when the total number is actually a maximum of 19) being reduced to zilch over 10 generations obviously didn't understand it either. (and still doesn't!).
.................................................. .........
Consider:
Each queen of each hypothetical colony mated with 16 unrelated drones – each drone contributed his genetic complement, including a particular sex allele: So each queen of each of the 10 colonies, as already agreed, received one sex allele from each of the 16 drones with which she mates – a total of 16 unrelated sex alleles each.
Extrapolate this argument to 10 separate colonies; each colony queen receiving an unrelated sex allele from each drone, thus each colony possesses 16 unrelated sex alleles: simple multiplication dictates that there must therefore be 10 x 16 = 160 unrelated potential sex alleles in the apiary. Or if you wish to have these queen perform in a more nymphomaniac manner – 10 x 19 =180 unrelated alleles.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
The original hypothesis based on your article in the magazine and still highlighted on moraybeedinosaurs was rubbish at the time and is still rubbish.
19 alleles Eric, not 160! The original postulation was made to highlight the potential dangers of a diminishing gene pool in any remote area with low honey bee colony density. Given that drones can easily travel 10 miles and Beowulf Cooper reckoned you needed 20 for complete isolation, can you name a few spots in Scotland where there is a beekeeper with just a couple of colonies 15 miles from the nearest beekeeper or feral colony.
.................................................. ...........
My own area in Dalmuir is such a “ low honey bee colony density” area - as is the area around Kilberry in Argyll and the Crinan Canal. – to say nothing of places like Jura or Ghia. Drones and queens in the West Coast of Scotland have high winds to contend with which makes “distance mating” fraught.
In the totally isolated,10 colony postulation the colonies coming out of the 3rd/4th winter will be headed by sister queens of varying degree and the drones with which these ladies will mate will be drones produced by inbred queens resulting from previous brother/ sister/uncle unions - from only 10 colonies
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
If you want 160 letters or more you will have to start speaking Chinese or maybe double dutch - hmmm!
.............................................
Maybe once the queen has had her fill - she returns the surplus letters to sender.
Eric
Last edited by Eric McArthur; 21-03-2011 at 11:12 PM.
Eric, sorry but that is just wrong, misunderstood. There are only 19 different sex alleles. You can't have 160 or worse still 180. You are misunderstanding something very basic here which is leading you to make false assumptions. This was all explained in the previous thread.Consider:
Each queen of each hypothetical colony mated with 16 unrelated drones – each drone contributed his genetic complement, including a particular sex allele: So each queen of each of the 10 colonies, as already agreed, received one sex allele from each of the 16 drones with which she mates – a total of 16 unrelated sex alleles each.
Extrapolate this argument to 10 separate colonies; each colony queen receiving an unrelated sex allele from each drone, thus each colony possesses 16 unrelated sex alleles: simple multiplication dictates that there must therefore be 10 x 16 = 160 unrelated potential sex alleles in the apiary. Or if you wish to have these queen perform in a more nymphomaniac manner – 10 x 19 =180 unrelated alleles.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
simple multiplication dictates..!!!!!
Last edited by Jon; 22-03-2011 at 12:09 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks