|
5 July 1987
Southern Arizona Beekeepers
Association
Dee A. Lusby
3832 East Golflinks Road
Tucson, Arizona 85713
Subject: Seemingly Incongruousness
of Morphometric Measurements of Honeybees as Relates to Africanization
vs Domestic Size Characteristics.
Chairman - Agricultural Committee
E. "Kika" De La Garza
1301 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subcommittee - Operations Research
and Foreign Agriculture
George E. Brown
2256 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Morris K. Udall - Rep
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Attn: Mary Brooks
Honorable Gentlemen:
Please reference my 20 May
1987 letter in which I stated that the Southern Arizona Beekeepers
Association is now currently asking the Biology and Evolution
Department of the U of A for help in Analysis in morphometric
identification of our various bee races and strains found in
this country, namely Southern Arizona.
We have now hit a slight problem that I believe needs attention
while it still can be corrected. Specificially, in talks with
Dr M. A. Houck Ph.D., Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
Univ of Ariz., we have learned that the Fast Africanized Bee
Identification System - FABIS; and based on morphometric research
done at the University of California at Berkeley by Dr H. V.
Daly, is seriously flawed. They do not take into consideration
size from shape cause and effects by geographic location and
natural selection.
When further asked what this
meant, we were advised that sowehow, a geometric analysis of
form using multi-variate statistics "PCA Analysis"
to seperate size-effects from size-independent effects on bee
body form does not seem to have been performed. Without this
analysis various races and strains cannot be correctly identified.
In view of this information,
we asked what information was available on bee identification
from our various land grant universities. We were advised that
identification had been accomplished on most insects i.e. bollweevil,
grasshoppers, flies, blister-bugs, locusts, etc, but that there
was a void on bee identification morphometric analysis bacause
most of the land grant universities assumed that the ARS
or the USDA was carrying out this responsibility.
In checking further we have
learned that there is nowhere in the United States a facility
where beekeepers can send their bees for quantitative analysis
for race/strain determination for bee breeding quality control
purposes. We have found out that FABIS does not use color in
differentiation of Africanization to tell small subfamilies apart
by race and degree of hybridization. We have found that FABIS
etc is based on the size of AHB found and measured in South America
but not projected as to what the measurements will be when the
bees reach the southern United States. We have found out that
the current AHB cell measurements now used to show Africanization
in Costa Rica are larger than good Italian bee cell measurements
taken and written about in the American Bee Journal September
1969 issue by J. Woyke, Warsaw, Poland "African Honey Bees
in Brazil". We have found that current bee identification
practice lumps all European bees together for measurement purposes,
but does not seperate out Eurasian bee measurements. (The three
main races commingled in this country are: Italian, Carnolian,
both European; and Caucasian which is Eurasian). We have found
out that G.E. Cantwell, USDA, Beltsville, Md wrote the American
Bee Journal, October 1974 "The African (Brazilian) Bee Problem"
that it is obvious that the cell size of worker cells measured
on newly drawn comb varies greatly from region to region in this
hemisphere. (Note: With cell size so varies worker size by geographical
region.)
In further checking papers
in the Carl Hayden Bee Research Facility Library, we found and
noted that tbe FABIS Identification System carries a warning.
Quote:
| "The sensitivity
of this technique necessitates a warning. Ideally, users should
verify that the European bees in their area are similar to the
European bees in this study before these procedures are used
to detect Africanization. If the European bees are not similar,
especially if they are smaller, locally collected baseline data
may be used to develop new discriminate functions or at least
be considered in evaluating results. Such new functions would
be more appropriate to the users' needs." |
In checking, only Florida has
been found to be taking pre-African bee samples of domestic stock
to take into consideration the variation in these measurements.
No other state is doing so.
In further checking with the
U of A we have been told that a complete morphometric analysis
must include drone measurements which up to now has not been
done by the USDA/ARS. All European countries use both worker
bees and drones in analysis, currently, except the United States.
In researching, it has been found that from pre-1900 through
WWII that both worker bees and drone measurements were used in
this country for analysis by the likes of such men as: E.F. Phillips,
D.B. Casteel, V.L. Kellogg and R.G. Bell. After WWII the habit
of measuring both somehow stopped. Why and how is not completely
known. What is known is that there is less variance to be found
in measuring worker bees with 32 Chromosomes than measuring drones
with 16 Chromosomes, and since drones are considered haploid
and simply represent an unfertilized matured sex cell of his
mother, then genetically when a drone mates with a queen, it
is, in effect, a mating between the drone's mother and the new
virgin queen. Since there would be more variance in measuring
drones for differences by race/strain it does not sound logical
to leave half the morphometric measurements undone and just measure
the harder to gauge 32 chromosomes of the workers.
In view of the above, certain questions come to mind that therefore
need answering prior to the Africanized bees arriving in the
Southern United States and particularly Arizona.
1. If each country has measured
different in cell size and morphometric analysis for the
AHB as they progress north through our hemisphere, why has this
not been built into our present measurement system?
2. If the cell sizes taken
in the sixties and fifties show good Italian bee stocks to be
smaller than today's AHB cell measurements now taken in Costa
Rica and Mexico, then what domestic stocks are being truly depopulated
in this country other than aggressive bees turned in by, in most
all cases, unprofessionals/hobbiests, not accustomed to dealing
with the various temperments of bees at different times of the
year and season?
3. Why are not race, color,
and racial size characteristics taken into consideration between
the various subfamilies within our hives?
4. Why have all of the bee
races, major to this country, been grouped together as European
when they exhibit different race characteristics and one actually
is in itself an Eurasian bee of known comprobable size characteristics
to the AHB?
5. If AHB measurements have
now indeed exceeded good morphometric measurements for natural
bred domestic stock rather than artificial bred domestic stock,
are we going to be destroying our better bee stock lines of commercial
beekeepers because they refuse to learn artificial practices
and inbreed with closed populations that in the long haul over
the period of a century or less will break down?
6. If our land grant universities
can measure all bugs regardless of size and tell them apart by
region, area, etc., why can't they use their software/computers
already in place and measure for the ARS/USDA unbiased, the various
bee races/strains in this country, to quickly identify for them
the size differences, color differences, they have inadvertently
overlooked? It's been mentioned that one good person with proper
software, bee samples, and 1- 1-1/2 years time might complete
the missing analysis. Once completed, besides using against the
AHB, the data could be used for the first time to give this country
a quality control bee breeding tool by our bee industry.
In all, I feel the above was
due your attention, as an industry in Southern Arizona, we will
be needing the information resolved if we are to successfully
breed to dilute the AHB when they arrive and alleviate the problem
through genetic natural selection with man's help.
Supporting documents and/or
references are provided below.
Thank you for your time again.
Cordially,
Dee A. Lusby - President
Southern Arizona Beekeepers Assoc
Atch:
1. African Honey Bees in Brazil
- J. Woyke, ABJ Sept 69
2. The African (Brazilian) Bee Problem - Cantwell, ABJ Oct 74
3. FABIS Manual - Rinderer, Sylvester, Baton Rouge, La USDA
4. Status of the Africanized Bee Find in Calif, Cobey & Lawrence,
ABJ, Sept 85
5. A Survey of Current Beekeeping Practices in Calif,
Gordon, Locke,
Nasr, Tyler, Webster, ABJ Dec 86
Reference: African Bee Study
Team Committee with Dr C.D. Michener of
U of Kansas, Dr H.E. Esch, Notre Dame, Dr N.E. Gary, U of Calif,
Dr S.P.
Hubbell, U of Mich, Dr W.C. Rothenbuhler, Ohio State; Drs M.V.
Smith &
G.F. Townsend, U of Guelph, Ontario Canada. Committee Report
submitted Beltsville 1972 after extensive study.
Variation and Correlation in
the appendages of the Honeybee, E.F. Phillips, Feb 1929, Cornell
University
|