It's nice to see that an erring paper is due to be retracted so quickly.\n\nIn flagrant contrast, there is an old, extremely serious scientific error, touted as a great achievement in hundred, if not thousands of serious scientific publications, as well as in the popular scientific media, that no one seems to even consider retracting. \n\nI refer to v. Frisch's Nobel Prize winning "discovery" of the very famous, but non-existent honeybee "dance language" (DL). \n\nThe still ongoing honeybee DL hypothesis was first discredited by Wenner & his team in 1967, after the hypothesis had already become a revered ruling paradigm. Thus, instead of being rewarded they were quickly turned into paraiahs. The DL controversy has, since then, been going on for over 40 years, even tough, (because DL opponents are generally denied the right to be heard, many serious scientists "know" that the controversy had been resolved long ago in favor of DL supporters.\n\nAfter this very lengthy controversy it has finally become possible to discredit the v. Frisch's whole DL hypothesis in a very short shrift: The DL hypothesis turns out to have been a stillborn hypothesis, rooted in outright scientific fraud, disguised by a deliberate cover-up.\n\nThe DL hypothesis, first published by v. Frisch in a scientific journal, in 1946, as presumably already fully adequately experimentally confirmed, was preceded by v. Frisch's own initial conclusion, based on his own first study on honeybee-recruitment, (published in a very extensive summary in 1923), that honeybee-recruits use only odor, and no information about the location of any food. Moreover, the results obtained in tat study already grossly contradicted his later, sensational DL hypothesis, long before its inception, in terms from the expectations from round dances. \n\nAccording to the DL hypothesis round dances cause recruits to find food with the foragers' food-odor, only near the hive, within not more than 100 m. from the hive for any honeybee species and strain. V. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment showed that this was not at all the case, in all 3 tests which included such sources further from the hive. The honeybee DL hypothesis was, therefore stillborn.\n\nThe techniques used in that first study were extremely simple, and fully adequate, to the point that neither v. Frisch, nor anyone else ever saw any fault with the study.\n\nHowever, after the inception of his sensational DL hypothesis v. Frisch "eliminated" the results of that first study, which refuted the hypothesis. The act fully qualifies as an act of outright scientific fraud. Eventually, in his 1967 definitive book on the honeybee DL (translated from the German edition of 1965), he substituted for the "eliminated" results, the results of new tests with round dances, actually done in 1962, using a drastically different experimental design than that used in his first study on honeybee-recruitment. This time the results fit the expectations from his DL hypothesis. (None of the sources that were more than 100 m. from the hive were found by the recruits.) The act of the substitution fully qualifies as an act of deliberate cover-up.\n\nV. Frisch, however, truly, and innocently believed he had discovered the DL he had attributed to honeybees, and that he acted correctly, in reviving the stillborn DL hypothesis, "eliminating the early results that refuted the hypothesis, and covering up the "elimination", because, in his own mind he only valiantly saved The Theory of Evolution from an erroneously perceived crisis it would presumably face in the absence of the honeybee DL. He, as well as many others, became convinced that the honeybee DL simply had to exist to explain to provide an otherwise inconceivable adaptive value for honeybee-dances and dance-attendance.\n\nHowever, irrespective of his noble purpose, his honeybee DL remains none other than a stillborn hypothesis, rooted in outright scientific fraud, disguised by a deliberate cover-up.\n\nThe reason he, as well as many others, became convinced that the honeybee DL simply had to exist is that even though on the face of it the DL controversy seems to be a controversy over some idiosyncratic behavior of honeybees, the controversy actually constitutes the most important reflection of a much more basic controversy over the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral science, and Biology in general, i.e. the controversy over whether genetically predetermined individual traits, (known as "instincts" in behavior) exist in ontogeny. They don't. But I shall not go into that general controversy here.\n\nAT any rate, we are all owed retractions by very prestigious, refereed journals like Nature, and Science, and by very many others, that repeatedly touted the honeybee DL, as well as by the 1973 Nobel Committee. The retractions are going to severely damage the scientific reputation of very many scientists, both dead, and alive. \n\nWould anyone who should publish a retraction ever master the courage, and decency required to do just that? I can't say.