From: "Lucinda Sewell" <lucindajohn@sewellhome.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:42:00 -0000
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: what is a feral bee

Hi all -

Barry wrote,

> On one hand, feral infers a distinctness or uniqueness about many elements
> together. The bees and their surroundings."

People infer things Barry, things express characteristics. You are confusing things by creating a new 'race' of bees here. Someone ended this discussion (Babookyra?) with the dictionary definition, sorry but that's the one we should use. Let's not agree to make up new meanings for words please.

Allen wrote:
> In such hospitable areas, feral bees take on characteristics that tend
> to be very distinct and which stubbornly resist change.

> Even the invasions by the AHB seem to be characterized by a strong
> initial impact lasting a few years, followed by a tendency to reversion
> towards the original characteristics of the adapted local feral
> population -- if there was one.

Barry wrote:
> It would still be interesting to know, if possible, what these characteristics are.

The original 'wild' bees were not feral. They had to be domesticated perhaps and then swarms became feral, but they were a strain, perhaps with survivor characteristics adapted to their environment, perhaps with these characteristics so dominant that they defined the bee as a race. The new scutella genes expressed themselves vigorously in America (and people 'inferred' all kinds of stuff) and then the natural dilution ocurred...but to the hodge podge we call bees, not to some mystical pure strain.

Barry wrote:
> Malcolm gave us some insight into how we might qualify the other side
> (domestication). I especially took note of this:

> "As far as we know, few changes occurred in either honey bee structure or
> behavior to accommodate to humans similar to those in the domestic dog. This
> is in spite of the fact that both organisms have been associated with humans
> for almost as long."

> Surely some significant change has taken place with our domesticated bees
> and dogs when compared with the wild version. Surely our breeding has played
> a major role in this? Wild dogs look and behave quite differently than our
> domesticated pets. While we may not be able to see a physical difference
> between the bees, have we been able to significantly change the bees we keep
> in hives today, apart from appearance?"

This is what I understand Malcolm meant, dogs changed physically, bees haven't. Dogs don't swarm, and genes are not lost completely. Our truly domesticated animals have little chance to remain influenced by their wild cousins or express their characteristics naturally. In Johannesburg Zoo is an African wild cat. Looked just like our kitang I rescued from a rooftop in suburbia. When we moved to a smallholding 3 years later kitang lived with us, but hardly touched tinned food. Feathers marked her feeds daily. Perhaps in time herds of feral cows would revert to Aurochs (sp?) Many would die, but inputting some proven hardy lines...like those in the so called 'Afrikander' would greatly increase survivability and nature would create her own hodge podge that worked around that hardy nucleus.

Dee said this:
> Yes if placed onto the proper sized combs. They will tear the others
> apart in breeding and foraging also.

It makes complete sense that any race of bees will prosper the closer to it's home environment it is. Cellsize varies with race and is a major component of environment. Many other things vary with strain too, but they are expressed characteristics, not genetic differences. My question remains unanswered, which comes first, the bee or the cell?

Barry wrote:
> Others felt that length of time was important in describing feral. The
> longer the bees were some place other than a beekeepers hive, the greater
> possibility that they would be feral. Even bees seen coming and going from
> an abandoned modern hive over the years might be considered feral, yet I
> question this unless it can be proven that it is the same bees year after
> year and not new bees that keep coming in from elsewhere. If swarms from
> domestic bees keep inhabiting this hive, would they not still be
> domesticated, at least until new genes where introduced?

Introduced from where Barry? From another race...the honeybee version of my probably mispelled Auroch? Do we look backwards for the origin of the species, or breed forwards, using cellsize as a selection tool to give advantage to our preferred bee?

Barry wrote:
> Dee writes about feral:
> "where bees are harmonious with Nature."
> "they are not all random sizes"
> "They are when uniform only mating with one possibly two strains/races at
> most."

> I assume a more uniform color also goes along with this as a characteristic?
> I tend to think of feral along the lines that Allen and Dee have suggested.
> A multifaceted definition, one that is not explained with few words. I think
> often times people apply feral to bees that are in that transition group,
> rather than the true feral that Allen talks about.

No, I think you are confusing the issue of wildness and race. Feral means feral.
Look in the dictionary. Discuss race and expressed characteristics as such.

Barry wrote:
>> This is reflected in English law, which regards bees, if I understand
>> it rightly, as wild animals in a temporary state of captivity.

> And exactly how are they captive? Is a bird nesting in one of our bird
> houses a captive animal? This is an interesting concept applied to bees I
> never quite understood. Does this not prove that domestication has to be
> more on the genetic side and less on the material side, such as hive
> structures?

Clipped queens are an anathema to some, some will use queen includers...We keep our bees Barry, there is no denying that. There is no gene for domesticity, only characteristics that we select for in our hives/dogs/whathaveyou. The genes that are there remain, and new genes are only introduced from other races.

Barry wrote:
> Someone else felt that human influence was what defined feral. No human
> influence, it's feral. Is this only direct human influence or also indirect,
> as would be the case with swarms leaving a domesticated hive where the bees
> had been breed for certain characteristics.

In certain areas in the USA perfectly docile 'domesticated' feral bees are slaughtered for fear that their new found freedom will result in killer traits surfacing. This is a crime, one you should address. Addressing it will entail confronting the crap the media sold the world and that beekeepers bought into about AHB. Have fun...

> > it is domestic; they're my bees.

> in this case, feral is any bee that is not in someone's apiary?

After they have drawn their own combs I think yes...and they are feral caucasian cross ligustica, or feral ligustica cross carniolan, or feral scutella. After a few seasons the best suited mix will surface as a local strain, after many generations this strain may well be described as a race...but it is not the archetype honeybee.

Dave wrote:
> but I have never noticed any behavior differences between feral and
> escapee, that are not the same as behavioural
> differences apiary to apiary and beekeeper to beekeeper.

Dave is saying it like it is. We have totally mish mashed the world's bees. Hive to hive bees are different, so much so we mostly cannot even distinguish the ones we selected as breeders anymore without a magnifier and a computer, let alone call wild or domestic by examining characteristics. Many beekeepers don't know or care what race their bees are, and a good swarm is a good swarm no matter how far it flew.

Barry wrote:
> Sorry Helmut, there is still no end in sight to this discussion! :>)

You asked what people thought feral bees meant and they told you. What else do you want to redefine?

John