No we don't.
Originally Posted by Jim Fischer
There are a number of strategies found in mammals against arthropod blood sucking parasites. Many are behavioral - but they work to the degree they need to. Ever watch an elephant carefully coat itself in mud? I do, at least several times a week. Many animals use this strategy. Ever watch lemurs use their grooming combs to remove ectoparasites from one another? It works. In fact social grooming a a big thing with many primates. Even simple scratching provides some aid. It is not perfect, but mother nature rarely goes for perfect. She is more of a "good enough" kind of gal.
A number of animals alter their habits so as to be out and about at the times when there is the least parasite pressure.
In addition to conspecific grooming there are many instances of interspecies beneficial grooming to remove or reduce the incidence of external parasites.
Changes in cutaneous leukocytes can also create a resistance to ectoparasitism (look up basophil and guinea pig and tick)
Nah, not at all. The change might be rather subtle. One could propose many (A lower threshold to initiate grooming behaviors. An increased sensitivity to the odors given off by stressed larvae etc.) An while it is interesting and should be described if we are to exploit it's full potential, it can exist outside of an explaination as to it's mechanism of action. I can't explain gravity, and in the end neither can you, but we both make use of it.
> The failure of scientists to identify the actual mechanism for adaptation
> does not mean the absence of the mechanism for adaptation.
Uh, ok, but it would have to be both "random mutation" and a significant
change for the bees.
Resistance to a parasite is developed over time incrementally, There isn't the sudden deposition of iron and carbon in an exoskeleton. It will be a collection of a number of things, some present now, some the result of fortuitous mutation in the future. Most will be subtle and the thing most easily measured will be the sum of a lot of little things, not the actual things themselves, at least initially. And changes will happen in both host and parasite. Things like traveling and distance to other susceptible colonies or individuals will play a role.
Don't be silly. there would still be soft bits between the armor. Don't you know anything about armor?
Akin to the appearance of a bee with a very
hard ("stainless steel") exoskeleton.
I do as the idea as you have stated it is ridiculous - which is why you stated it that way.
Please accept that there is no such
If you haven't already figured it out, deer have found a way to have beer sold to rednecks at a low price so as to adversely affect their aim. That is how they are becoming resistant. Problems is the rednecks keep buying bud and miller and don't quite get sauced enough.
Please understand that the same bee would be "sting proof"
as well as "varroa proof". Kinda like a bullet-proof deer.
Do I think the average beekeeper is going to breed resistant bees? Nah, the gene pool to select from will need to be huge. Do I think that over time the mites will be less pathogenic and the bees less susceptible to damage by the mites? Yep, seems to the pattern in host parasite relationships. It takes a long time though and there will be losses, lots of losses. And the resistance will not be perfect.
Remember this - we are not talking about absolute resistance here, it rarely exists. We are talking about being resistant enough to get by, that is what happens. Now there is often a difference in what an animals owner will consider getting by, and what mother nature considers getting by, something some of the harder core organic minded folk have a hard time seeing - but that is another thread.
Disclaimer: I use the term mother nature as the personification of how things work in our little neck of the universe. I know it is bogus, but it saves typing a bunch more words. Take it in the spirit it is intended and try not to make too much out of it.
Bee Sting Honey - So Good, It Hurts!