Dancing bees, or not.

[Keith Benson]

I have read some of the stuff for and against the Dance Language. Some of the material that one can find on the net by the opponents of the Dance language can be a little tough to get through. Not because the information is complex, but the axe grinding is so pervasive it is kind of a put off. I guess I just don't like reading the word "stillborn" 800 times in a single missive and I turn it off.

Having said that, can someone, concisely, tell me why it is that the opponents of the language feel that the information is actually there, if not to be used by the bees? I generally think that mother nature is conservative and tends not to keep extraneous structures and behaviors around.

Keith

[Hobie]

Disclaimer: I have not read any of the articles "against" the bees' dance language, and I cannot fathom how the word "stillborn" warrants even one use.

In my opinion, those that do not see any validity in the dance language behavior probably do so because it attributes some form of intelligence to the bees, and some may believe that only humans can be intelligent.

[Keith Benson]

I cannot fathom how the word "stillborn" warrants even one use.

Neither would I have, were I not to have read it, over, and over, and over.

In my opinion, those that do not see any validity in the dance language behavior probably do so because it attributes some form of intelligence to the bees, and some may believe that only humans can be intelligent.

I think that may be true for some, and that is another topic, I just want to know what the core of the above stated argument is, without slogging through some lengthy diatribes if possible.

Keith

[Barry]

Not sure I understand the problem with use of the word stillborn. The repetition I can see, but the use of the word?

•figurative (of a proposal or plan) having failed to develop or succeed; unrealized : the proposed wealth tax was stillborn.

[Hobie]

Understood.

Just for kicks, I googled "bee dance language stillborn". I still must disagree. The term is used in association with Karl von Frish's experiments. First of all, I hardly agree that the theory has failed to develop. Many people are aware of it.

Second, in my opinion, their discrediting of von Frisch's dance language hypothesis because he earlier had proposed an "odor" theory is akin to discrediting the scientist who proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, because earlier in his life he no doubt believed the Earth was the center. If we can not realize that our earlier work was incomplete or in error, or expand upon our earlier research, all scientists over age 20 may as well just retire.

But none of this addresses Keith's original question...

[Keith Benson]

Not sure I understand the problem with use of the word stillborn. The repetition I can see, but the use of the word?

•figurative (of a proposal or plan) having failed to develop or succeed; unrealized : the proposed wealth tax was stillborn.

For me it is the overuse, though I also agree wiht Hobie. In fact the language patterns I mention are interesting, sort of, and would perhaps be even more interesting to people who study certain aspects of human behaviour.

But none of this addresses Keith's original question...

Indeed, and I am really looking for the short version here.

Keith

[Barry]

Understood.

Just for kicks, I googled "bee dance language stillborn".

I see. It appears to primarily be the term used by Ruth Rosin.

[Keith Benson]

I see. It appears to primarily be the term used by Ruth Rosin.

I don't doubt that she may make some good points, I just have a hard time slogging through her writing. Maybe I just prefer something a little less . . . subjective (?) . . . when I read something that is supposed to be scientific?

[adamf]

I'm being lazy and not looking up the info sorry--but from what I recall from delving into the Dance Language Controversy was that Dr. Adrian Wenner refuted the "communication" in the dance language hypothesis, posing olfactory cues as more viable in the process.

Recently, there was a very elegant paper on Von Frisch's hypothesis and I'm fairly sure the outcome pointed favorably toward "dance language" vs. "olfaction. If you want the citations for the papers, send me an email and bug me and I'll dig them up.

Adam Finkelstein
adamf7@gmail.com

[Kieck]

The argument I've read several times is that bees can use olfaction, and do use olfaction, to locate sources of nectar and pollen, so the "dance language" is incorrect.

While I can understand and agree with some of that argument, I've witnessed demonstrations where bees are "sent" to sources up to two miles downwind for sugar water. To me, that supports some form of language, and the "dance language" fits well.

[Keith Benson]

I'm being lazy and not looking up the info sorry--but from what I recall from delving into the Dance Language Controversy was that Dr. Adrian Wenner refuted the "communication" in the dance language hypothesis, posing olfactory cues as more viable in the process.

No worries, I understand that there are those who argue that all the bees need is olfactory clues and I am not suggesting that this is not the case, I guess what I am looking for is why the information about direction and range is actually in the "dance" at all, if it is not used. Recently it has been suggested to me that much like there is temperature information that can be gleaned from a chrickets chirp, information the cricket does not use, that the directional infomation in the bee dances is not used by the bees. I guess I do not see them as strictly analagous.

The cricket is chirping not because he wishes to communicate the temperature, but because he is looking for love. So there is a reason other than acting as a weather station for the behaviour. What I want to know is, if the dance does not serve to transmit the rather specific information it is purported to (and is much more complex than the chirping of a lonely cricket) then why do they do it at all? What is the real reason they engage in this beahviour.

Recently, there was a very elegant paper on Von Frisch's hypothesis and I'm fairly sure the outcome pointed favorably toward "dance language" vs. "olfaction. If you want the citations for the papers, send me an email and bug me and I'll dig them up.

It did, and was immediately called bunk and an whole lot of other not so nice terms. I will take you up on the offer, thanks!

Keith

[Keith Benson]

The argument I've read several times is that bees can use olfaction, and do use olfaction, to locate sources of nectar and pollen, so the "dance language" is incorrect.

Why can't they do both? A little redundancy can be a very adaptive thing. If the odor hypothesis is true to the exclusion of the dance hypothesis, then what the heck are they doing?! Less Dancing, more working!!!

Keith

[Jim Fischer]

Keith, this is not an area where calm and objective inquiry is
going to help you.

Those who, like Ruth Rosen, make a habit of trying to refute the
dance-language explanation of forager recruitment, are people
who discuss no other topic, and many, like Ruth, don't even
keep bees or give a darn about bees. They are "behaviorists",
or they are writers of "review papers" (papers that present
no new work, but instead compare and contrast the work
of others).

For some reason, it appears to irk these folks that bees are
so darn "smart", when other insects are not as "smart".

Or maybe they are simply playing the traditional "long shot"
of thinking that if they somehow "disprove" something that
got VonFrish a Nobel, that they will also get a Nobel.
This has never happened, but people like Ruth keep
plugging away, and I still get about 3 letters a week
from people who are sure that they have disproven one or
more of the Laws of Thermodynamics, one of Einstein's
rules, and other famous works.

If it is any help, even [SIZE=-1]Adrian has abandoned the attempt,
and decided that the ongoing arguments and studies
are a waste of time and money. This is not to say that
he has changed his view, only that he has stopped
debating this matter.
[/SIZE]
For me, the final and authoritative stake in the heart of these
extremely tedious arguments has been the work of Bill Towne
at Kutztown U. in PA.

For example, read this:
Towne WF and WH Kirchner (1998).
Honey bees fail to update their solar ephemerides after a displacement.
Naturwissenschaften 85: 459-463

Now, if odor had anything at all do to with anything other than confirming
the last few yards of final approach for a foraging bee, how could Bill
have been able to get dancing bees to "fool" and misdirect other bees
to the wrong location on the cloudy days, and see the "error" slowly
be corrected as the sun emerged from the cloud cover?

And why would ANY forager be misdirected to the wrong location if
odor had anything to do with the vectoring of forager sorties?
If odor was the mechanism, all the bees would go to the feeder every
time, and the cloudy days would not confuse them.

Now, I have been hoping for Bill to finish a newly-updated article with
even more data, so I can write about it in Bee Culture, but he is still
fussing with this and that, trying to be absolutely sure. Suffice to
say that he has some pretty kewl new results that confirm his
1998 paper.

But the 1998 paper is compelling enough on its own.

Note that flowers don't put out much nectar on cloudy days anyway, so
the basic point of the paper, that bees can be confused if they have
been moved since their first orientation flights if and only if the sun
is obscured by heavy cloud cover, really has minimal impact on
practical beekeeping.

But the science is very elegant, the findings are very neat and tidy,
and the proof of the point is very powerful. Bees clearly do use:

a) Dance Language to vector sorties and recruit foragers

b) The famous UV pattern in the sky to navigate

c) Lacking the UV pattern, they use landmarks

d) They learn landmarks only once, and never re-learn them
if they are moved.

Therefore, cloudy days are likely not big nectar collection days, but
just LOOK at all the stuff that is neatly proven by one consistent
experiment Bill can run on colony after colony.

But don't bother arguing with people like Ruth Rosen.
She pops up, trolls about the same thing over and over, gets
cut to tiny little bits by any random passer-by with half a brain
and the ability to think clearly, and then "quits" whatever discussion
group she has infested in a huff. She's done this like 6 times over on
Bee-L over the past decade or so.

[Hobie]

Why can't they do both?

Exactly! When your spouse has a tasty batch of chocolate chip cookies coming out of the oven, do you not smell them, use your voice to inform the kids, follow your nose, then home in on them using your eyesight?

It would be much less efficient for bees to NOT somehow communicate locations of good forage to the others. Plus, it would appear that bees would then only forage in the two upwind quadrants. All my locust trees are downwind, and 38 lbs of honey from one hive says they found it.

Has anyone else read von Frisch's book? He also did experiments with polarization of light. The polarization of the sunlight changes as the sun passes overhead throughout the day. He noted that, when he put polarizing sheets over the light source into the hive, the returning bees would do their dance (based on the real outdoor polarizing angle), and the new bees leaving would head off in a different direction, precisely the angle difference defined by the real vs. "man made" polarization angle. Explain that!

[Keith Benson]

Exactly! When your spouse has a tasty batch of chocolate chip cookies coming out of the oven, do you not smell them, use your voice to inform the kids, follow your nose, then home in on them using your eyesight?

Tell the kids? Whaddarya insane, those buggers will eat them all!

Keith

[Barry]

Explain that!

Explain how bees can see a dance taking place in the dark? It's not like they go out to the front porch to dance a jig.

- Barry

[Keith Benson]

Explain how bees can see a dance taking place in the dark? It's not like they go out to the front porch to dance a jig.

- Barry

Good point. But I don't think they necessarily have to see the thing, they are in contact with the "dancers" during portions of the dance. My impression is that bees in a hive are constantly in contact with one another. Does it have to be a visual input for bees?

Keith

[Keith Benson]

OK - I guess I would like to remind anyone who cares to chime in as to what the origional questuion was. I think I understand the dance theory, i ahve read many of the studies that support it and find many of them to be quite compelling and elegant.

What I want to know is, if the behaviour is not for relaying the information that everyone including the dance opponants feel is there, then why do they do it? Or, what is the mechanism for producing this phenomenon? There must be one as is evidenced by the consistancy of the behaviour.

Keith

[Keith Benson]

Keith, this is not an area where calm and objective inquiry is
going to help you.

I was hoping that by keeping to this single question we might not have to deal with the more volatile parts of the equation. Maybe I am too naive.

They are "behaviorists",
or they are writers of "review papers" (papers that present
no new work, but instead compare and contrast the work
of others).

I find such people morbidly fascinating, and the more ultrafocused the more fascinating. On lark I have run a few lit searches for her and come up with very little past the 70's that isn't her battering the Dance theory, though apparently she takes exception to anyone suggesting that bugs use magnetic comasses as well. Of course all of this is a response to an article, there is veruy little I can find by way of original work - though maybe I am looking in the wrong places.

For some reason, it appears to irk these folks that bees are
so darn "smart", when other insects are not as "smart".

Yeah, in this particular case I don't see a lot of the dispassionate scientist who disagrees, but a very emotive approach. Who knew that some bugs boogying in the dark could offend someone so?

I still get about 3 letters a week
from people who are sure that they have disproven one or
more of the Laws of Thermodynamics, one of Einstein's
rules, and other famous works.

I knew I was sending mine to the wrong guy - what is your snail mail?

Therefore, cloudy days are likely not big nectar collection days, but
just LOOK at all the stuff that is neatly proven by one consistent
experiment Bill can run on colony after colony.

It is pretty elegant and very compelling.

Keith

[Barry]

Does it have to be a visual input for bees?

Probably not, which gives rise to other questions for me. If they receive the message through touch, then I can see much more validity for odor to enter into the equation.

- Barry