Nature, Legislation and Angels

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
As I just explained in a post, I would like to continue in this new one the deviation that was caused in the main post.
The title refers to nature, law and angels. The reason is to answer about.
Wild swarms and their status within beekeeping legislation.
and the angels?
 
I'd be much more comfortable messing about up there with a reliable human steadying at the bottom
Actually, those tripod ladders are virtually impossible to tip over ,,, they have such a broad base at the bottom of the steps that you really would have to apply a lot of leverage at the very top of the steps to get it to tip. I loathe heights but I feel reasonably secure on these steps. The advantage, as well, is that the single leg means you can site it with the leg right into the hedge or close in to the tree so you don't have to lean out. As I said ... brilliant bit of kit. They really don't need any steadying.
 
The millions of species on this planet that arose via speciation? Speciation is the product of what happens on a generational basis, they are interlinked.

Speciation is not normally about suddenly developing new traits (we were talking about whether genetic material is lost in nature, not whether it is gained although the latter, if it happens, does appear to be the blue moon event you refer to), it's about selection from existing genes leading to loss of other characteristics. Darwins finches were not an example of genetic information increasing but of it being lost and/or expressed less. Dog breeds are another example through artificial selection.
"The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. A new article in Nature by Galápagos finch researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, “Speciation undone,” confirms what we we’ve said here in the past — Galápagos finch species are capable of interbreeding — but adds a new twist: they’re interbreeding so much that in multiple cases, two “species” may be fusing back into one species. "Nature: Galápagos Finch “Species” Can Interbreed | Evolution News

There are several clues to discussions we might have that would enable accurate statements to be made. We ARE out of context - none of this has any relevance to bees. But its interesting all the same.

First the Galápagos finches are not different species. In fact there's plenty of argument about the ways we record species (and subspecies). The usual dividing line for species is the ability to interbreed. But just because different 'species' are not interbreeding doesn't necessarily mean they can't - often they are simply choosing not to, in which case they are subspecies. This is the case with Darwin's finches; they have each adapted to their separate island environment, have different features, and when bought together generally don't mate. But if push comes to shove they will create hybrids.

It is a brilliant example of the evolution of what I've called 'landraces' in honeybees; local adaption resulting being attunement to the local environment. Bees don't _seem_ to fussy about inter-mating, although there is interesting speculation if not more about (speaking of push coming to shove) free-living bees being picky.
That's not a legitimate inference- Honeybees have met parasites before, whether they've met a parasite like varroa before is not well documented. 'probably' is speculation.
That they will have met a wide range of parasites in the past is pretty obvious. That they will have held on to the tools that deal with them would be expected. They clearly have a toolkit, and have adapted to varroa by bringing up those tools that work best. Personally I wouldn't call any of that speculation. Marla Spivak has spoken of how any apiary (ie all bee races and hybrids) can raise, I believe, VSH, in a population. My impression, and expectation is that uncapping and recapping the same.

Quite which selection of tools, and which 'settings' [1] choosing from among these, general high hygienic behaviours, grooming, crushing varroa, undertaking and floor-cleaning - and perhaps others unknown and subtle - is best at any time can only be discovered in populations free to locate them through natural selection. A la the Galapagos finches.

[1] Think EQ on a good music system.
 
Actually, those tripod ladders are virtually impossible to tip over ,,, they have such a broad base at the bottom of the steps that you really would have to apply a lot of leverage at the very top of the steps to get it to tip. I loathe heights but I feel reasonably secure on these steps. The advantage, as well, is that the single leg means you can site it with the leg right into the hedge or close in to the tree so you don't have to lean out. As I said ... brilliant bit of kit. They really don't need any steadying.
I can believe that: its more the soft ground that might worry me. Some well-placed ply will I guess fix that. However, messing about at height is inherently dangerous, period. Doing it while in a disorientating suit makes it much worse. Unless you are well practiced (I used to be) I would say its far and away the most dangerous thing you'll do as a beekeeper. Unless I really want the swarm (because its one of mine) I won't do it anymore. FWIW in my younger days I once painted cranes, and another time stood on top of a wobbly high decorated Edwardian stack feeding a 4 stories high 6" stainless steel 'flexible' flue in.

Nowadays I limit myself to fixing a pulley at height on a tree trunk prior to felling it and pulling it in the right direction with my towbar. Uneven ground doesn't help, but the way the ladder clasps the trunk at the top reassures.
 
The tripod ladders are indeed wonderful. I use mine a lot. It's great on ground that isn't level because the back leg retracts and extends, and it has wide clawed feet (about 4" in diameter) that make it very stable even on relatively soft ground.

And yes, I wish I'd bought a longer one, too.

James
 
"The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. A new article in Nature by Galápagos finch researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, “Speciation undone,” confirms what we we’ve said here in the past — Galápagos finch species are capable of interbreeding — but adds a new twist: they’re interbreeding so much that in multiple cases, two “species” may be fusing back into one species. "Nature: Galápagos Finch “Species” Can Interbreed | Evolution News

There are several clues to discussions we might have that would enable accurate statements to be made. We ARE out of context - none of this has any relevance to bees. But its interesting all the same.

First the Galápagos finches are not different species. In fact there's plenty of argument about the ways we record species (and subspecies). The usual dividing line for species is the ability to interbreed. But just because different 'species' are not interbreeding doesn't necessarily mean they can't - often they are simply choosing not to, in which case they are subspecies. This is the case with Darwin's finches; they have each adapted to their separate island environment, have different features, and when bought together generally don't mate. But if push comes to shove they will create hybrids.
A nuance in his dissertation, the cross must have viable offspring to be considered the same species. Thus, the two individuals to be crossed would be classified as subspecies (second surname in the taxonomic denomination) and the result as a hybrid.
Two examples of interspecies crosses without viable offspring, the mule as a mare and donkey cross. El reo as a cross between salmon and trout.
In the case of the bee, it is as if we were trying to cross apis cerana with apis mellifica. Due to genetic divergence it is not possible. In a similar way it is done in floral taxonomy, where the divergences tend to be smaller.
 
Two examples of interspecies crosses without viable offspring, the mule as a mare and donkey cross. El reo as a cross between salmon and trout.
you are wrong as regards El Reo by the way, a salmon/trout hybrid does not exist - a sea trout is not a cross between a salmon and a trout - genetically identical to a brown (river) trout, its is just that some brown trout tend to go downriver, some go as far as the estuary (slob trout) and others swim around the coast for a while the English call them seatrout but in Wales we call them sewin, Scotland, peel, they are also fertile although as they are brown trout, it is not guaranteed that the offspring will all be migratory
You've also forgotten the other 'Mule' a cross between a finch and a canary produces an infertile hybrid. known by breeders as mules
 
I can believe that: its more the soft ground that might worry me. Some well-placed ply will I guess fix that. However, messing about at height is inherently dangerous, period. Doing it while in a disorientating suit makes it much worse. Unless you are well practiced (I used to be) I would say its far and away the most dangerous thing you'll do as a beekeeper. Unless I really want the swarm (because its one of mine) I won't do it anymore. FWIW in my younger days I once painted cranes, and another time stood on top of a wobbly high decorated Edwardian stack feeding a 4 stories high 6" stainless steel 'flexible' flue in.

Nowadays I limit myself to fixing a pulley at height on a tree trunk prior to felling it and pulling it in the right direction with my towbar. Uneven ground doesn't help, but the way the ladder clasps the trunk at the top reassures.
The steps are less used for swarms as I have a swarm catcher which, with two lengths of 3m x 22mm copper pipe joined with an internal spigot I can get to 5m without even standing on a beer crate. I have an extending branch lopper which, with a willing assistant, will lop the branch they are hanging on straight into the swarm catcher ... Well, that's the theory, in practice - it works most of the time ! It's more reliable than the cardboard box balanced on top of the steps .. been there !

Swarm catcher in the sales at present .... £20 !

https://www.thorne.co.uk/sales/sale-miscellaneous-equipment/budget-swarm-catcher.html
 
you are wrong as regards El Reo by the way, a salmon/trout hybrid does not exist - a sea trout is not a cross between a salmon and a trout - genetically identical to a brown (river) trout, its is just that some brown trout tend to go downriver, some go as far as the estuary (slob trout) and others swim around the coast for a while the English call them seatrout but in Wales we call them sewin, Scotland, peel, they are also fertile although as they are brown trout, it is not guaranteed that the offspring will all be migratory
You've also forgotten the other 'Mule' a cross between a finch and a canary produces an infertile hybrid. known by breeders as mules
I was a river fisherman, apart from the morphological differences (slender and mottled) the coloration of the muscle was very indicative. The salmon has a red muscle while the river trout had it white. I have found individuals with very light pink tones and in the rivers that I fished it was impossible for salmon or trout to come up from the sea, when the dams were made the flow was cut off so that it remained upstream and downstream they had different paths.
 
I was a river fisherman, apart from the morphological differences (slender and mottled) the coloration of the muscle was very indicative. The salmon has a red muscle while the river trout had it white. I have found individuals with very light pink tones and in the rivers that I fished it was impossible for salmon or trout to come up from the sea, when the dams were made the flow was cut off so that it remained upstream and downstream they had different paths.
I don't care - you are wrong, I was chairman of the Carmarthenshire Fishermen's Federation for years, we sponsored and maintained a fish breeding station to restock the river Tywi nd supported numerous studies on salmon and seatrout genetics. sat through more talks and waded through more data than I care to forget, did a lot of work with salmon river regenaration under the tutelage of Dr Graham Harris who actually gained his PhD through the study of seatrout.
What you are describing is just bog standard landlocked salmon. Their red colouration of the flesh is down to the crustaceans they eat whilst at sea, you can see evidence of the3m losing this colouration by comparing fresh run fish caught when they first enter the river system to those who have been in freshwater for a while and caught up nearer to the reds.
I am talking fact not surmise.
 
If I may, I think the context is what happens in evolutionary terms on an each-generational basis, and what happens in evolutionary terms once in a blue moon, is something rather different. Carrying observations from the one to the other probably doesn't work in this case.

In 20 million years bees haven't at any time decided to grow butterfly wings and become a new species, especially one that out-competes their progenitor. Its not likely therefore to happen in the next few years.

Adapting to a new parasite very similar to tens of thousands they've probably met before is however not just plausible but well documented.
Bring the pedant that I am I would like to point out that a blue moon event occurs every 12 months as a blue moon is the second full moon of a calendar month.
 
Bring the pedant that I am I would like to point out that a blue moon event occurs every 12 months as a blue moon is the second full moon of a calendar month.

Oddly, the idea that a blue Moon is the second full Moon of a calendar month is a relatively recent one (within the last hundred years, I believe). Prior to that it referred to the third full Moon during a season in which there were four (and that meaning is still preferred by some). I've no idea why the third was picked out as the "odd" one, nor why it was termed "blue". They don't occur every calendar year though, only every second or third year. There wasn't one in this year (2022) for example, but there will be in 2023. This is because there are just over 12⅓ lunar cycles in one year (365.25 / 29.5, approximately)

James
 
Bring the pedant that I am I would like to point out that a blue moon event occurs every 12 months as a blue moon is the second full moon of a calendar month.
Not quite, if there is a blue moon in January of a year, there will also be in March, May, July, August, October and December. Interestingly 2021 I think I remember it was one of those years.
 
Not quite, if there is a blue moon in January of a year, there will also be in March, May, July, August, October and December. Interestingly 2021 I think I remember it was one of those years.
How can that be if there is a full moon every 28 days?
 
How can that be if there is a full moon every 28 days?

Once in a blue moon I'm forced to think about some really pointless stuff on here....I like ro think it wards off old age of the mind.
There appear to be a few alternative definitions of "blue moon" in the UK and maybe that's the case with @fian ? In our case I think we are working on the basis of having calendar months that are out of sync with the actual length of a lunar month.....just as, if we got paid every 29.53 days we would see an extra pay-packet most years and maybe two extra in some years. In such a situation I would prefer fian's definition. ;)
 
Last edited:
Once in a blue moon I'm forced to think about some really pointless stuff on here....I like ro think it wards off old age of the mind.
There appear to be a few alternative definitions of "blue moon" in the UK and maybe that's the case with @fian ? In our case I think we are working on the basis of having calendar months that are out of sync with the actual length of a lunar month.....just as, if we got paid every 29.53 days we would see an extra pay-packet most years and maybe two extra in some years. In such a situation I would prefer fian's definition. ;)
If you are a pensioner that is what happens. 13 pay days per year!
 
How can that be if there is a full moon every 28 days?
Because we must discern between the peak and the range. The peak is a punctual value but optically the full moon is thus visible for a few days. If the moons fall at the end of the month, the 31st is just as visible as the 1st of the following month.
If we mean the strict peak. 365.25/29.53 gives 12 peaks and almost 11 days. So the phenomenon will repeat itself sometimes every 2 and others every 3.
Finally, the period of translation of the moon on the earth is not constant, so these oscillations also modify the perception of the phenomenon.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top