Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: 2012: Module 6

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Thanks Bumble, I knew what they were, I just couldn't find a name for them, there I was trying to find something all fancy in Latin or Greek and it's plain English and under my nose all along.

    I'm trying to resist using the mid bucks guides for now, there are some changes to the syllabus for 2012 that seem to be missing and while I like using it as a revision aid I also like to find the information for myself if I can.

  2. #22

    Default like minds

    Hi Nellie
    I found your posts/thread via the magic of google (whilst looking for some guidance about marking of papers). It's good to find a thread on mod6, even tho' its getting a bit late in the day to be revising for the exam next week.

    You might be interested in this link - examiners comments on a candidate for 2011's mod6.

    I was very happy to find this American biologists website - he puts much of the contemporary view on primer pheromones into nice order, which is hard to do from the primary literature, if it's just a hobby! Warning though - it might turn your revision schedule on its head, as it's well written and detailed.

    I do wonder though whether the examiners are interested in the contemporisation of understanding. There's a lot of reference to Morse and Hooper in the examiners' comments - a 28 yr book that costs >50, when for the same price I got Honeybee Democracy and the Buzz about Bees!

    Perhaps I'm just getting worried that I won't get a good mark in the exam.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Hi Thada,

    The point about the mid bucks' guides is that they're for the 2011 syllabus/correspondence course. The question about nectar guides isn't in it. They're still good notes and hence why I use them for revision because the major stuff it does cover is very well done.

    I can't speak for the BBKA but we do have people in our association who have and are involved in the BBKA education and I've certainly always been under the impression that if you can justify your answer by reference to more contemporary material that it would be given due consideration. Quoting Seeley or Tautz I doubt would be seen as controversial.

    I'll check out the links and thanks, I'm sure they'll swiftly be added to my links. My revision "schedule" is fairly loose, I just work through the syllabus more or less point by point and find as much stuff out about it that I can.

  4. #24

    Default

    I'm using the midbucks notes as the basis for my revision notes too. In some parts of the syllabus there doesn't seem much to add - and in other areas I've scribbled lots of additions. I'm treating myself to a couple of days at the national honey show at the weekend. I'll get to hear from Margaret Coullivon whether it still makes sense to talk about round, sickle and waggle dances. And what constitutes hygienic behaviour from Marla Spivak even though that seems not to be in syllabus - but interesting all the same.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    I'd say Margaret Couvillon is worth listening to in the context of module 6 for sure I spotted a workshop being run at LASI a little while ago and took myself of there to have a look, very interesting to put it mildly.

    "This American biologist" is Randy Oliver, I think it would be safe to say that many on this forum are familiar with his site
    Last edited by Neils; 23-10-2012 at 11:22 PM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    400 miles S of Stonehaven
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nellie View Post
    Thanks Bumble, I knew what they were, I just couldn't find a name for them, there I was trying to find something all fancy in Latin or Greek and it's plain English and under my nose all along.
    When you're used to dealing with more complex terminology it's easy to forget the names that hide themselves in plain sight.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Now I've had a chance to read it, that feedback paper is very useful. I've not asked for feedback on any of my papers before but I think that's a handy pointer towards the level if detail you need to go into for what sounds like a solid pass.

    As the owner of the paper's comment about remembering the chemical names(?) came to mind I had a look at it and here's a method that helped me. disclaimer, I'm not a chemist so apologies to any who are if I stamp all over the proper way of doing things:

    Sucrose is:
    C12 H22 O11 <--- remember this bit.

    To invert it, you need Water:
    H2 O
    And a catalyst (Invertase, Sucrase, lemon juice, tartaric acid, heat or lots of time)
    If wikipedia is to be believed Invertase and Sucrase are not the same thing, they act in a similar manner but split the link between the fructose and glucose differently.

    Add the water and the sucrose, which gives you
    C12 (H22 + H2) (O23 + O) ie C12 H24 O12

    Divide that by two for
    Glucose
    C6 H12 O6

    And Fructose
    C6 H12 O6 <-- or remember this one and work backwards, ie double it, remove water and you're left with sucrose.
    Last edited by Neils; 24-10-2012 at 10:54 PM.

  8. #28

    Default

    No point in asking me Nellie - I'm a chemist, so what works for me is likely to be gobbledygook for you!! The important bit is the molecule of water that is used to split sucrose into F+G. Thanks for the recommendation about Margaret Couvillon - I couldn't see her lecture at the National Honey Show, but for the price of a cup of coffee, she gave me a lot of her time explaining the waggle dance, and how von Frisch got the distance calibration (a little bit) wrong. And Keith Delaplane was awesome (said in faux American accent). As a result, I came home and straightaway read key bits of Holldobler and Wilson's "The Superorganism". They really nail honeybee communication in just a few pages.

  9. #29

    Default

    Neil
    These are mod 2 questions.
    Nice if they repeat them in mod 6.
    Have you taken mod 2 yet?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Not yet, that's in march for me. There are some odd subjects covered in mod 6 so it doesn't surprise me to hear that there's a fair degree of overlap with module 2.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •