Confusing BBC article

[melliferal]

Here

Go ahead and read that article (it's not long) and tell me if it sounds to you the same way it sounds to me.

It sounds to me as if the scientists mentioned in it have "discovered" that if a hive is left queenless, it will develop laying workers.  It sounds to me that they're claiming to have learned the reason for this is that workers are averse to raising nieces and nephews rather than sisters and brothers (which admittedly would happen once a new queen develops).  It seems to further claim that the transformation into a laying worker takes place not in adult workers but in the larval stage, and that the developing ovaries "take the place of" food glands (are they referring to the organs on the workers' heads that produce royal jelly?). And finally, it seems to claim that all this was learned from studying a single hive split.

Most of this article seems to get nearly everything I (think I) know to be true about bees completely wrong, and the remainder makes no sense.  So is this a case of vastly ignorant scientists, or an extremely bad translation and reporting job on the part of BBC?

[carlfaba10t]

Apparently what he is saying is this is a way for the mature workers to promote their own genes.Sort of a rebellion by workers until new queen is laying,and then all the workers fall in line and raise her brood.
So what kind of worker bees are hatched from a laying worker? all drones or regular workers.or no sex!  :idunno:

[Stinger]

Laying worker = drones only

[melliferal]

Right; laying workers only lay unfertilized eggs which means nothing but drones, even in worker cells.  We know some workers start to lay in the absence of a queen; and of course when an actual queen is raised and eventually starts to lay eggs, the laying workers will be got rid of if you haven't got rid of them yourself already.

But that's what I'm saying - the article is treating this like a fascinating new discovery when it's really Beekeeping 101-level stuff.  And I'd still like to know how they concluded that workers begin to lay because they don't want to raise "nieces and nephews", as if their ovaries developing is a choice they make – as opposed to a purely biological reaction to an absence of queen pheromone meaning nobody's laying any eggs, which is how I've been led to believe it works...

[Michael Bush]

There are always anarchistic bees (laying workers) in queen right hives.  But the numbers are always low and the "egg police" can keep up with removing drone eggs from worker cells.  It's a lack of open brood pheromones that causes hundreds and thousands of them...

http://www.bushfarms.com/beeslayingworkers.htm#multiple

This is the cause of them becoming a problem instead of just the norm.

[yockey5]

Don't ever believe everything you read or hear, think for yourself and observe what you see and experience.

[FRAMEshift]

There are always anarchistic bees (laying workers) in queen right hives.  But the numbers are always low and the "egg police" can keep up with removing drone eggs from worker cells.

In Wisdom of the HIve, Tom Seeley says that 10% of the eggs laid in a queen right hive are from laying workers.  Although laying workers are a very small percentage of all workers. (I think it's .07%)  there are lots of workers and only one queen.  So there are always worker laid drone eggs, but they are eaten by other workers within a few hours of being laid.  That's what makes a eusocial community work.