Which wing morphometry software?

[Kate Atchley]

I'm familiar with DrawWing, thanks to Jim McCulloch, and about to try the trial version of BeeWing. Their relative merits have probably been discussed already in the forum (in which case please close this Gavin) but I can't find it.

What do you reckon are the pros and cons, the best program, leaving aside the cost of BeeWing against the free download of DrawWing?

And what about MorphPlot v CooRecorder? Are there other favourites out there?

[Jon]

Drawwing is probably the best, combined with Peter Edwards morphplot to represent the data.
But bear in mind that if your bees are already hybridised there is nothing to be gained from doing the wing morphometry on them.
The main use of wing morphometry is to pick out hybrids which have crept into a pure race population, but most people are not starting with a pure race population of Amm.

[Kate Atchley]

The main use of wing morphometry is to pick out hybrids which have crept into a pure race population, but most people are not starting with a pure race population of Amm.

Jon yes, I've been reading some of the (somewhat contradictory) wisdom on the use of wing morphometry. We'll use it in the first instance to check pure mating of the Colonsay bees down the Ardnamurchan peninsular.

Found two of my hybridised colonies elsewhere giving DrawWing readings in the low 80%s which attracts different interpretations. They're both fine colonies – quiet, non-swarmy, tendency to supersede, early Spring build up – so will breed with them anyway and see what happens.

[Jon]

The percentages you get re wings in a hybridised population don't mean a thing.
80% of the wing patterns lying in the Amm quadrant does not mean 80% Amm genetics.
The sample could have 10% Amm Genetics or 90% but you cannot draw that conclusion from scanning wings.
Kate Thompson looked at this recently as part of her PHD thesis at Leeds and wing morphometry as a tool in hybridised/mixed populations is basically a busted flush although many are reluctant to accept this in spite of the evidence.

[Kate Atchley]

Kate Thompson looked at this recently as part of her PHD thesis at Leeds and wing morphometry as a tool in hybridised/mixed populations is basically a busted flush although many are reluctant to accept this in spite of the evidence.

Still not published? We could do with more detail on this and the other aspects she was looking at.

[Jon]

She did a presentation at the Bibba conference and also at the Bibba AGM last year.
She has a paper or two published. There was one came out on PLOS last summer.

[gavin]

We'll use it in the first instance to check pure mating of the Colonsay bees down the Ardnamurchan peninsular.

Sounds to me like the perfect use of the method. You've started with something that is known to be Amm and are checking that it still is. If the bees still look like Amm visually (body colour, abdomen hair length, thorax hair colour, abdomen tomentum stripes not *too* broad) then this also suggests that Colonsay bees (ie Amm) can show about 80% of individuals meeting the criteria. As far as I understand it the wing morphometry traits help distinguish taxonomically different insects as there are 'typical' values for each type. No need for every individual to meet the criteria, a bit of individuality is allowed. 80% is just fine, but only if everything else about the bees suggest that they are Amm too.

But yes, this should not be used as a selection criterion alone and hybridised bees will always remain hybridised bees even if their wing traits have been driven in one direction by breeding for them.

[Jon]

Summarisng the use of wing morphometry it is to check if they aren't as opposed to proving that they are.

[The Drone Ranger]

Or it might be black and white but that doesnt make it a Border Collie far less a sheepdog

[Jon]

Could even be a penguin!