Talk:Honey bee/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

sharefin copyright

I deleted material that came from http://www.cairns.net.au/~sharefin/Cyclopedia/rural_economy.html -- Zoe

2003 edit conflict

2 Apr - Apparently, JohnOwen and I were editing this page at the same time. I think I found and integrated your changes. Please update if I missed anything. Rossami

Not much, just link to beekeeper even though there's nothing there yet (nor at apiarist nor beekeeping, I checked). And I don't like seeing caps in the first half of piped links, it's a pet peeve of mine; so I did that too. ;) -- John Owens 00:07 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

apiculture

Separation of topics

The honeybee page should be separated into several separate pages. I'd like to combine the honey section with the honey page but don't know how to do this. Anyone willing to help? shoefly 12/28/2004

added wiktionary link though I am unsatisfied

I added a wiktionary link to honeybee. That wiktionary entry notes the alternative spelling "honey bee". Unfortunately, I think this is an unsatisfactory solution to linking the spellings since, for most of the publications that matter, at least in the US, the spelling "honey bee" is preferred. The two spellings are nearly dead-even say the editors of merriam-webster. but they arrive at their count via a brute force count from publication, papers, etc... they don't weed out based on the publications that "matter".

Regardless, the spellings are apparently both used often, and I would love a nice concise way of stating that. One of the maintainers of this entry nuked my effort at this and suggested using wiktionary and linking to it. Unfortunately, I think that is inadequate and ultimately hides the other spelling.

Maybe this issue is not all that important, but, well, maybe it is.

My 2-cents. -Tonica Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:23:00 -0500

Foraging distance?

How far will foraging honeybees range from the hive? -- 18 Feb 2006

I did a study on this once to determine pollination effectiveness. On cucumber and melon fields the bees ranged .6 mile (one kilometer), with a sharp drop off in the number of foragers that ranged further. However, the distance very much is in proportion to the richness of the food supply. In an area with many abandoned fields that were covered with goldenrod, the bees were only ranging less than .2 mile, getting all the food they could handle, so not venturing further. In desert regions they have been observed to travel much further to flowers around springs or in irrigated fields, but hives do not thrive if they wear out their workers' wings going too far for food. Pollinator 02:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for dark green honey

I am a honey farmer in South Africa and recently I came across four hives with dark green honey. There is no diffence in taste except for the colour. Do you perhaps have an explanation for this rare occurance. Willie de Klerk

It could be an unusual floral source that is not commonly worked by the bees. I've seen seasons where the bees seem to work flowers that I've not seen them on normally. Do you have any university bee researchers or a government extension service for beekeeping that could do a pollen analysis of your honey?

Another possibility, is someone in the area open feeding. A friend of mine did some graduate research with Nestle's Quick (he had bought a salvage load - in this case strawberry) which is mostly sugar, with flavoring and dye. He open fed the mix in drums, and all the bees in the area made "red honey." Pollinator 14:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

impending restructuring

Just to give folks a heads-up; there is a great deal of this page which applies ONLY to Apis mellifera. Given that Apis mellifera already has its own page, this is an unnecessary amount of redundancy, in addition to filling up the page so that any proper comparisons between species is buried in the mass of text. At some point in the near future (i.e., not today), I expect to export much of this present page's content (the parts that

aren't verbatim duplicates) to the mellifera page, and restructure this page so it very briefly synopsizes each of the four primary species and takes readers there for details; the remainder of the page will be devoted to information on the evolution of the genus, its fossil history, and other general information about the genus as a whole.Dyanega 04:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bee SEM, TEM or STEM

Any chance we can get one of those electron microscope (scanning, transmission or scanning-transmission) images of a honeybee on here? It would show much more detail than these photographic pieces. Unfortunately I do not have access to a non-copyright image, any other scientists who might have an image they are willing to donate?--WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sting subsection

A subsection titled "Sting" was added to the page on 5 Oct. It was immediately tagged with multiple requests for citation. Personally, I don't think that most of the citation tags were justified but I also don't think that the section added much to the article. Since this is clearly a disputed section, I am removing it pending discussion here. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most honeybee workers contain a barbed sting that they use to defend their hive or in self-defense. Symptoms in humans being stung include a sharp pain at the site of the sting. This usually goes away after the sting is removed. However, some humans develop allergic reaction to bee venom and must be treated at once.

Queen honeybees also sting, but only in self-defense and when rivalry between other queens develop. Their sting is curved and is not barbed. Their sting is less painful than worker bees. See Schmidt Sting Pain Index.

I agree with Rossami's analysis and don't have a strong opinion about whether the content should be retained. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that, from a BIOLOGIST'S point of view, honey bee is more accurate than honeybee. However, in common usage, honeybee predates honey bee by several hundred years. Therefore, honeybee should be an accepted, though perhaps alternate term. The question might be asked whether this is a purely scientific article, or a cultural article. I would argue that honeybee should be left as an appropriate term for usage here. User: F.Civish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.250.209 (talk) 18:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Beekeeping

I've put this article in WikiProject Beekeeping to help organisation and improvement of articles. I'm just trying to rustle up interest - if anyone is interested in being a member, please just sign up on the main project page - you can do as much or little as you like! Martinp23 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin of bees

There was an article in recent issue of Science journal (one of November 2006 issues I think) about origin of bees. Genetic data showed that (contrary to what is commonly believed and what is claimed in this article) bees actually originated in Africa, not in Asia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.113.18 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide a specific reference? -- Donald Albury 12:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

References to the origin of BEES are not pertinent; this article discusses the origin of HONEY BEES. Dyanega 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about adding some thing about how they are nonnative invasive species to the Americas that have displaced native pollinators and there effects on the pollination of native plant species.Hardyplants 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed already, in the article which is relevant: Western honey bee. No other species have been introduced anywhere, so it would not belong here in the Honey bee article. Dyanega 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Feral pest in Australia

Is it worth adding some info about how the feral honeybee is now a severe threat to many hollow nesting birds and mammals in Australia? Gemfyre 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be, if this was a page about Apis mellifera, which it is not. See the comment immediately above this; if you wish, add it to the Apis mellifera page, in the section where it talks about how it is a feral pest outside its native range. Please do not add information that only applies to A. mellifera to THIS article. Yes, I know everyone assumes that there is only one species of honey bee, I should cut them some slack, but that's like having the WP article for bird filled with information about the chicken, when chicken already has its own article, simply because there ar more chickens than any other species of bird. Dyanega 09:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bee Problems

Feral North American honeybee populations were severely depleted by varroa mite infestations in the early 1990s. Feral bee populations are now recovering, having self bred for resistance to the mite. Improved cultural practices and bee breeds have reduced dependancy on miticides (acaracides) by beekeepers.

I think this paragraph overstates the current state of affairs on a couple of points. If it's alright, I am going to temporarily revert the paragraph until we can address some of the comments below. Rossami 16:24, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. More than just the feral populations were hit. Kept colonies were hit just as hard.
   • That depends on whether the beekeeper was consciencious and up to date. The mites have pretty well eliminated the rural laissez faire old timey beekeepers who had bees simply because their parents and grandparents did. But younger and more suburban beekeepers tend to be club members and did a better job of keeping up with the issues. Indeed some areas have seen a little growth in beekeeping, mainly where they have a dynamic club.Pollinator 21:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. I have not yet seen any evidence that feral bee populations are recovering or that they have developed any resistance to the mites. Most of the research which I have read traces the "new feral" colonies to recently escaped swarms from commercial or hobbyist beekeepers. They often colonize the same places (and on the same comb) as the last colony so it can appear that a colony has existed in the same place for a period of time when, in fact, it has been several colonies in succession finding a cavity, inhabiting it and succumbing to the mites. As further evidence, if any feral bees had developed confirmed resistance to the mites, they would have been immediately domesticated by the beekeeping industry. No such resistant bee is available on the market, leading me to believe that this statement is not yet true.
   • There are some feral populations on the southeast US coast, according to my and other beekeeper swarm calls, discussions with loggers, observations of flower foraging, etc. But when I go inland, or northward, there are many places where honeybees cannot be found unless there are beekeepers in the area. I would guess that some bees in mild climates have been able to coexist with the mites, but that the addition of a more severe climate is too much.Pollinator 21:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC
   • I reinserted the feral recovery part. Our observation in our bee club (suburban inland S.F. Bay Area (California USA) was that upon arival of varroa, calls for swarm removal declined from several hundred a month to only a few. The last three years have seen an incredible restoration of our swarm calls during peak season (about now) to the 100+ range per month. These are feral swarms as our beekeepers are careful to avoid swarming from kept hives and most local beekeepers are members of the club. We have considerable urban and open space woodlands with much oak which forms favorable sites for cavity dwelling bees. Leonard G. 02:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. While improved breeds and IPM practices can reduce the dependency on miticides, I think it is premature to say that they have reduced dependency. Those breeds and practices have not yet been adopted widely enough to truly reduce the dependence. Evidence - the sales of Checkmite and Apistan remain strong and there is great clamor for the pending approval of Apilife Var. When sales of those products drop off, I think we will be able to say have reduced dependency.
   • Good point. I'm sure there are some stocks in many commercial outfits though, that have some resistance, especially if they have been buying Russian and other resistant queens, or using some feral stock. It's just that commercial beekeepers are not able to take the risk of not treating, and losing all those which do not have resistance. Pollinator 21:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • I have been keeping bees without medications of any kind (4 years now) using top bar hives and wild swarms. Tanzanian hives are particularly mite resistant in my observation. For Kenyans, culling of drone brood gives sufficient control in my circumstances. Leonard G. 02:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see an addition to the article about this. --PaladinWriter 12:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While this is a fine idea in the right context, PLEASE do not add material specifically about Apis mellifera to this page - do so on the Apis mellifera page. This page is NOT about the European honey bee. Dyanega 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be some information about Colony Collapse Disorder, as it is apparently having a major impact on bee colonies, especially in North America and to a certain extent, in parts of Europe. Some references:

- Colony Colapse Disorder, Penn State University

- Honeybees Vanish, Leaving Keepers in Peril, nytimes.com

- The mysterious deaths of the honeybees, money.cnn.com

Earthsound 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that information should not be in this article. CCD is a phenomenon unique to one species of honeybee, not common to all of them. It is referenced in the Apis Mellifera article (where it belongs). Furthermore, I will refer you to the CCD Talk page where there is counter-evidence suggesting that, despite all the recent media hype, there may not actually be a "major impact" on bee colonies in aggregate. For example, there is no evidence that there were insufficient colonies to support the California almond pollination (the single most bee-intensive operation in the US) nor is there any evidence that orders for replacement packages, nukes or queens are statistically higher than would be expected given last year's fall weather across the midwestern US and it's known affects on the forage and thus the stores available to the bees during the winter. Rossami (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources that suggest CCD is limited to Apis mellifera. For example, the CRS report refers to "[h]oney bees (genus Apis)" (Recent Honey Bee Colony Declines - Congressional Research Service Report For Congress). Perhaps I've misinterpreted something? Regarding the scale of the impact of CCD, you may be correct, but I don't think that precludes it's inclusion in the article. Earthsound 00:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just reading too much into a slightly sloppy congressional report. Apis Mellifera is the only species commercially kept in the US. I don't blame the authors because any reference to honeybees in the US could be safely and reasonably assumed to apply to a.m. so that's all that congress would care about. But this encyclopedia article is explicitly not about a.m. We have a separate article for that.
I have been closely following the research asking if this phenomenon has been observed in any other species. There are zero reported cases so far. Look in the BEE-L archives for confirmation. Rossami (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Flight

I once read in a book that according to the laws of physics, bees can't fly because thier body mass is to heavy for the lift generated by their wings. Comments? --//Mac Lover ^Talk_C 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment is apocryphal, and made in reference to bumblebees, not honey bees. It is discussed on that page. Dyanega 19:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Senses

The one thing that stands out about this page for me is that it lacks information about the extensively studied and very interesting subject of honey bee senses, their vision, tuned hearing, touch, taste, smell and magnetic field senses.Sean.hoyland 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is well-studied for only one species of honey bee, the Western honey bee - if you wish to contribute, please do so in the article for that species, not in this article. Dyanega 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Honey Bees Don't Exist

I just removed this little sentence at the top, about how Honeybees do not exist, but are rather just flies with stingers. The person claimed to have been told by a "scientist," so obviously it must be fact.

Shame, really. How people will believe anything so long as an authority says it.

Just keep a lookout for this: I am sure since it has been deleted, the person may be back to reinsert it. Aang-kai 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, a routine form of vandalism. People say stupid things either as a prank or as a "test" to see how long it will take before their vandalism is removed. It is really destructive to the project and we try hard to keep the vandals at bay. Thanks for your efforts cleaning it up. Can I offer a suggestion for next time, though? Rather than just editing the page to remove the falsehood, please check the edit history and open and then resave to a good version. This catches not just the fraudulent additions of content but also would have repaired the vandal's deletion of content. Thanks. And welcome to the Vandalism Patrol. Rossami (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to put Apis mellifera information on the Apis mellifera page

This is not, I repeat NOT, the Apis mellifera article. It is a simple, straightforward thing for editors wishing to contribute content about A. mellifera to add this content to its page, instead of this article, which is collectively for all the members of the genus Apis. I apologize if there was a "tradition" of just sticking anything related to A. mellifera here, but this is not appropriate when that species already has its own main page, and several other pages for each of its subspecies. Part of the purpose of an encyclopedic reference is to educate, and part of the education about honey bees is that there are many different species. Each one has its own WP article, and I respectfully request that editors use the appropriate species' articles for future contributions. If you wish to help eliminate the confusion, then please consider editing those links that point to this article instead of the A. mellifera article as they should. Thank you, Dyanega 00:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While you are technically correct, please also remember that we have a long tradition of naming articles based on the common understanding, not necessarily the technical name. Most readers when looking for an article on "honeybees" will be looking specifically for information on apis mellifera. They don't know the species name and will be very confused when they find so little information here and no clear pointers to the correct article. (And the vast majority of such readers are going to overlook the little disambiguation link you left at the top.) I agree that this article has needed cleanup for a while but I don't consider the current state of the article to be an improvement. Rossami (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is a conflict in how the page is titled. If you want "honey bee" to direct ONLY to A. mellifera, then THIS article needs to be retitled as Apis (genus), and "honey bee" turned into a redirect page, and nothing more - with the redirect going to Apis mellifera. You are, of course, welcome to do so, though I suspect there will be people who find that also unacceptable. To me, your invocation of "common understanding" is the logical equivalent of insisting that the page Elephant should not refer to all elephants, but instead refer solely to the African Elephant, which is most assuredly what "common understanding" of the name "elephant" is (at least among English-speakers). True, people in Asia might first think of the Indian Elephant, but also just ask someone in Asia who raises Apis cerana what they call their bees. If people looking up "elephant" in WP have to click on a disambiguation link and no one complains, then I see no reason why people looking up "honey bee" cannot do the same. What your complaint has pointed out, howver, is that the page is not presently structured so as to make it obvious that readers are looking at a page that refers to many different types of honey bee. I'll make that change now, and hopefully that will resolve the issue. Dyanega 19:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the article titled Apis mellifera should be kept as a scientific and biological reference, however, beekeeping is more than just scientific explanation of the organism. Beekeeping, though involving much science is also a cultural practice and there is a lot of cultural and 'common' information about the honey bee (honeybee) that just does not belong in the Apis mellifera article, but which does belong in an article on the honey bee as an organism with cultural implications in our society. I am a biologist, with Bachelor's and Doctorate degrees, and I am also a beekeeper. I do not feel that everything is BEST reduced to dry X's and O's and formulae and scientific facts. Things that have strong cultural implications, such as honeybees and beekeeping should have separate articles that make room for those cultural practices and general knowledge, in addition to, but not in place of, the standard scientific articles. --F.Civish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.250.209 (talk) 18:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

There is a beekeeping article. There are, in fact, about 20 articles dealing with Apis mellifera. There needs to be ONE article which deals with all members of the genus Apis in general. Since the only common name for all members of the genus Apis as a unit is honey bee, then the honey bee article must be that ONE article. Have you ever tried looking up "pigeon" in Wikipedia? THAT article is an example of what THIS article should be. A common name which the vast majority of laymen think refers to only ONE species, but which in fact refers to many species. If you can get the editors of the pigeon article to agree to revise the article so that the scientific article about Columbidae is SEPARATED from a newly-minted "pigeon" article (about the "cultural implications in our society" of only that one familiar species OF pigeon), then maybe you'll have a precedent that indicates the merit of this sort of editorial policy. In the meantime, I think it is a poor idea, and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is just as inappropriate to co-opt the article "honey bee" for purposes of discussing one species as it would be to co-opt the article "pigeon" to discuss one species, regardless of how popular the misuse of the name. Dyanega 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Honeybee question

I had heard that it's possible the current problem with honeybees in the United States may be because of a virus from Australia. I wondered if the honeybee in Australia had problems and if not, whether they had a different variety of honeybee. Brian Pearson 02:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No one has reported anything unusual in the Australian bees that supposedly carry this virus. They are the same exact strain of Western honey bee - that's the problem, in fact: most of the US honey bee supply is shipped directly from Australia, viruses and all. That's why they're blaming the Australian bees, even though I have yet to see any evidence to support the claim. Dyanega 07:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. -If- a virus is responsible, then maybe the new kid on the block, the african bee, could be the carrier? Brian Pearson 05:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. By comparison, the africanized bee has been "on the block" for generations. They haven't been the new kids for a very long time. You also would see different patterns of reports. Africanized bees are still limited (in the US) to primarily southern states. CCD has been reported far more broadly. It also has not been reported significantly in Mexico (which may be evidence or may be an artifact of the lack of reporting). The truth is that no one yet knows what's causing this problem or even how broad or narrow the problem is. One set of researchers did implicate a virus (and strongly implied an Australian connection) - other researchers have strongly criticized their analysis and remain unconvinced that a virus is behind it at all, much less this particular virus. Rossami (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a definitive classification - nuluensis and laboriosa are not species

I have included the reference to Engel (1999), which is the most recent revision of the genus; just because older or non-scholarly works treat nuluensis and laboriosa as species does not mean they are still considered as such. Dyanega 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dyanega, please look at this two Links [1] and [2]. I think both (dated in 2002) are scholarly sources. I'm not sure, but I have doubt that subspecies are correct. Unfortunately I have not the Engel paper. --MikePhobos 19:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Sorry I was to fast, first I've to provide and read the reference Engel, M.S. (1999) --MikePhobos 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You should note that the reference you give is to a paper which did not cite Engel's work; if they were unaware that Engel had relegated nuluensis to a subspecies, then they cannot be expected to treat it as one. It is, in fact, an understandable error on their part. Simply because it post-dates Engel does not mean it takes precedence, especially as it is not a taxonomic publication. Dyanega 00:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dyanega, thanks for your answer. Exactly that's my problem (as a layperson, a beekeeper not a scientist). Is there a taxonomic committee or something like that, which is authorised to establish what's right or wrong? --MikePhobos 06:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there's no committee which decides what's right or wrong - in this case, it boils down to the fact that some papers deal with classification, and others do not. Engel's paper is the most recent paper on honey bee classification, and no one has yet published a paper challenging any of his conclusions. There could be one tomorrow, for all I know, and maybe I'll change the articles at that point - but for now, Engel's is the accepted classification. Sometimes ideas, like politicians, run unopposed. Dyanega 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now I've appended chapters named "Systematik" (means taxonomic) to the relevant articles (Apis, A. laboriosa and A. nuluensis) of the german wikipedia, to describe this new results from Engel. I' did this a little bit more conservative than you. At the moment I've not changed the taxonomic names. My problem is furthermore to get and read the Engel paper (1999). And to pay may be 80$ to the publishing house is to expensive for me. --MikePhobos 11:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dyanega, I still think you're mistaken. Engel revised existing taxonomy, and rather that the crucial parts of his treatment have not been refuted, they apparently never were accepted in the first place.

Please provide evidence that Engel (1999) has been accepted as "definitive" by the scientific community; the "mere" phylogeny papers you dismiss so lightly do not indicate that the debate about the appropriateness of his proposed taxonomy has settled in his favor. Please also provide source where your "papers deal with classification, and others do not" distinction is formalized by the ICZN, especially as regards use of already-proposed valid names.

In a nutshell, almost all present authors seem to roundly reject the proposal of Engel (1999). Instead, they go with the originally proposed treatment of Tingek, Koeniger & Koeniger (1996) and Smith (1871).

I'd have no problem accepting your approach (taxonomy is so weird sometimes that it seems just possible to be correct) but I have hitherto failed to see a single scrap of evidence and ICZN regulation in support of your position, and I just can't accept it because you say so. It takes more than one man's opinion to topple 8 years of accumulated data. This data is there, it strongly refutes the proposal of Engel, and to accept your approach I either need a model how to tie in the data with the proposed taxonomy, or a binding IZCN article regulating use (as opposed to validity) of names. Dysmorodrepanis 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's simple enough: molecular data, and phylogenetics, do not provide "evidence" that a lineage is a species - it only provides evidence that it is a lineage - i.e., a taxon separate from other taxa. Whether or not to accord that lineage - that taxon - the rank of a species or a subspecies is the work of the taxonomist. It has nothing to do with toppling data. You cannot provide genetic evidence that something is not a subspecies, since that is not how subspecies are defined; a subspecies is defined as a population that is allopatric from related populations, and it can be (and probably usually is) genetically distinct, as well - in other words, genetic distinctness does not violate the criterion for a subspecies. The WP entry on subspecies sums it up: "Their classification as separate species or as subspecies, however, depends on why they do not interbreed. If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps black frogs do not find white frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species. If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies." In that respect, there is no evidence that laboriosa or binghami are NOT subspecies. The only thing that Arias & Sheppard DO discuss in terms of evidence for species status is their mention that cerana and nuluensis are sympatric (which would indeed make nuluensis a species) - but they then go on to say that nuluensis would render cerana paraphyletic, and as such, any taxonomist can tell you that it's better to keep them all as a single species until someone can work out exactly what IS going on within what is presently called "cerana" (that is preferrable to creating paraphyletic taxa - AND it might turn out that "nuluensis" already has an older available name). More to the point, Engel is still the last taxonomist to publish a formal classification of the species in the genus Apis. If I publish a paper tomorrow using names that were originally published as species but presently considered synonyms, that does NOT automatically reverse their synonymy; I have simply published a dissenting opinion, not an alternative classification. As for the ICZN, it does not govern the assignment of ranks, and you should be perfectly aware of that; the ICZN has no relevance in the matter whatsoever. The ICZN governs nomenclature and not taxonomy (since I am a bee taxonomist, presently working to revise the ICZN Code, I can assure you that this distinction is fundamental). It's simply a matter of "Do these authors propose a formal classification? Is this a revisionary work?" - and Arias and Sheppard's paper fulfills neither criterion. All that Arias & Sheppard have done is to say "we don't agree with the present classification". I'll note that Wikispecies also uses the seven species recognized by Engel. As far as the scientific community, the main on-line database of Hymenoptera names also lists nuluensis, laboriosa, and binghami as a subspecies. [3][4] Likewise, the present world catalog of bee names is online at [5] and the entry there for Apis also only lists seven species (and this resource is as close as there is to a "community standard" for bee taxonomy). [6] Bee taxonomists have accepted and use Engel's classification, and that's ultimately what counts. I don't think this sort of issue is particularly contentious at higher levels of classification (molecular trees showing novel families or family constituencies are fine because a family does not require a type designation), but for alpha taxonomy, all DNA can tell you is when two things are different - it CANNOT tell you whether that difference makes it a species, subspecies, or genus. Dyanega 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove the "disputed" template; the issue can be summed up as follows, for those interested in the exact nature of the dispute - Arias & Sheppard use the Phylogenetic species concept, which is defined as follows:

"A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species. Subspecies as such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable."

The bottom line, then, is that EVEN IF one were to accept their publication as an attempt to formally classify the taxa, such a classification would be incompatible with the Linnaean hierarchy used in Wikipedia, which DOES formally recognize subspecies. These authors are basically indicating that they do not believe in subspecies; this is therefore actually a reflection of the broader dispute within the scientific community as a whole as to the application of taxonomy and classification, and not simply a matter of a dispute as to whether people have accepted Engel's classification or not. In other words, there is no consensus in the scientific community regarding the recently-derived concept that subspecies do not exist - as such, for Wikipedia to adopt an alternative classification based explicitly on this concept would be adopting a minority viewpoint, violating WP:UNDUE. For present purposes, bee researchers DO recognize subspecies, and as such, a classification that does NOT is inappropriate here. Dyanega 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Replace main image

Hi,
Just wondering what people think about replacing the main image with this one: which is sharper and also shows the nectar sacks. --Fir0002 09:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Your picture has the bee partly obscured by the flower and those nectar sacks you're referring to are pollen baskets. Let's stick with the current picture. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How long do they live?

I can't find it in the article! 76.26.226.26 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember that the classification of "honey bee" covers a large number of species, each with a different life cycle. You'd have to look on the specific species' article for the answer.
I'll guess that you're really asking about the Western honey bee since that's the species that most of us are familiar with. For the Western honey bee, the answer depends on the caste and the time of year. The queen will typically live 2-7 years. Drones typically live a few weeks to months but almost all get pushed out of the hive as the weather gets cold. Workers will typically work themselves to death in about 5 weeks in the summer but can live for several months during the winter. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Barbed stings

I noticed my edit was reverted. How about saying 'almost all', 'virtually all' or something along those lines instead of 'all' ? Yes, 'all' is not true but it's statistically pretty close to true.

The different species of honey bees are distinguished from all other bee species (and almost all other hymenoptera)

It just seemed important to emphasise how very unusual indeed honey bee stings are compared to other hymenoptera species. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that sort of wording, if you feel the issue is important enough, though I would write it as "The different species of honey bees are distinguished from all other bee species (and virtually all other Hymenoptera)" - ordinal names and anything else from genus level upwards are capitalized when used as nouns. You would only not capitalize it if it were in adjectival form ("hymenopteran"), just like "Apidae" versus "apid". Dyanega (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thermoball

Just come across a new page with this title & it is very short; have proposed there that it be merged here into #Defense. I'm not an apiarist to I'll leave it to those who know better. --Rodhullandemu 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Thermoball" is a single author's coined word - it does not even qualify as a neologism. Since this defensive behavior is already discussed here, I suggest simply deleting the "Thermoball" article, or possibly making it redirect here; there is no reason WIkipedia needs to make an article every time a reporter coins a new word. Dyanega 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll redirect it. --Rodhullandemu 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it heat or suffocation? Are the intruders attacked physically as well? 71.167.67.250 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just heat is my understanding. The bee anatomy and the distribution of spiricules would make it extraordinarily difficult to suffocate a bee from mere physical pressure by other bees. There would be too many interstices between the bees where air could still circulate. On the other hand, it's not that hard to generate enough heat to kill a queen.
There are some aspects of physical attack in some cases but everything I've read limits it to biting at legs. Honeybees don't have strong mouths that way so I've not heard of that as a significant threat except when you're trying to introduce a new queen to a colony and the queen gets a foot caught through the wire mesh of her cage. Rossami (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They're attacked if they ignore warnings at least in the case of wasps.

"They were found to seize, bite, pull, hold and sting it."

Have a read of this [7] and have a look at these abstracts for interest[8][9] Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BumbleBee VS Honey Bee

Hi I am going to tons of sites trying to get info about BumbleBees and Honey Bees. It's very tiring so I was wondering if it was a good idea to start this new discution. Anyway I am trying to get details about the Nest structure (why built different), the bees body (in contrast to what they do that makes their body built the way it is), and that's it for now thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.32.48 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could expand Characteristics of common wasps and bees. I'm not quite sure what your objectives are with respect to the honey bee page. Would it be possible for you to elaborate on what you think should be added to the honey bee page ? Honey bees are so different is so many ways from other bees including bumblebees so I'm not sure what you have in mind. I do think it might be worth adding something that compares and contrasts honey bees and certain bumblebees to illustrate the constraints imposed by climate on the distribution of honey bees.Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

...of course, having a map showing the distribution of honey bee species and subspecies would be nice... Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I was trying to find out some detailed information about a honey bees hive and a bumble bees hive so that I could finish my essay on the differances on honey bees and bumble bees. And also explain in my essay the differance in body structure so I could explain why there bodys are built different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.13.9 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to compare two very broad categories of insect, each comprising multiple species. I don't think anyone can help you because there are just so many different kinds of bumblebee (and each has a different body structure and nest design) that we don't know which one to compare against. There are some very general comparisons you can make. You should be able to pull those details out of the two articles. Rossami (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will add to what Rossami just said by pointing out that the main differences between bumblebees and honey bees, as a group, is in their behavior and biology, and that the behavior is highly variable within each group. Aside from the fact that honey bees have physical differences between queens and workers (bumblebees do not, other than size and maybe color), the bodies of honey bees and bumblebees are EXTREMELY similar. In fact, if you were to take a worker honey bee and a small worker bumblebee, shave off the hairs and remove the heads, it would be nearly impossible to tell them apart because their body structure is so similar. Dyanega (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict between two wikipedia articles

"There are no honey bees native to the Americas. In 1622, European colonists brought the dark bee (A. m. mellifera) to the Americas, followed later by Italian bees (A. m. ligustica) and others. Many of the crops that depend on honey bees for pollination have also been imported since colonial times. Escaped swarms (known as "wild" bees, but actually feral) spread rapidly as far as the Great Plains, usually preceding the colonists. The Native Americans called the honey bee "the white man's fly". Honey bees did not naturally cross the Rocky Mountains; they were carried by ship to California in the early 1850s." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_bee#Cavity-nesting_honey_bees_.E2.80.93_subgenus_Apis)

versus

"The stingless bees Melipona beecheii and M. yucatanica are the only native bees cultured to any degree in the Americas. They were extensively cultured by the Maya for honey, and regarded as sacred." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingless_bee#Mayan_stingless_bees_of_Central_America)

What do we do from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.205.100 (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. There isn't a conflict. Stingless bees aren't honey bees even if they make honey. It's in the lead "only members of the genus Apis are true honey bees". Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

off topic

I think that there is too little on the honeybee and too much on related species like the dwarf honeybee.Smartpotatoe (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying that the Human article should be about Chinese people. Dwarf honeybees and all species of honeybees are honeybees. Perhaps you're looking for the European honey bee article. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2

In my opinion the proposed images do a better job of illustrating the honey bee than the current image. They are of higher resolution and quality. --Muhammad(talk) 17:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they die or not after stinging?

Not one of the Wikipedia bee articles answers this question, yet it's a well-known 'fact'. So is it true or not? Macgruder (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read all of them? Look here! --wau > 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm...THIS article states it pretty explicitly:

"The different species of honey bees are distinguished from all other bee species (and virtually all other Hymenoptera) by the possession of small barbs on the sting, but these barbs are found only in the worker bees. The sting and associated venom sac are also modified so as to pull free of the body once lodged (autotomy), and the sting apparatus has its own musculature and ganglion which allow it to keep delivering venom once detached. It is presumed that this complex apparatus, including the barbs on the sting, evolved specifically in response to predation by vertebrates, as the barbs do not usually function (and the sting apparatus does not detach) unless the sting is embedded in fleshy tissue."

That's not explicit. Many animals can lose part of their body with no lasting effect. This simply says the venom sac is detached. The worker bee article does state but this article should make it clear too - there's no strong implication that it dies here. --125.206.245.246 (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that not sufficient? It has to state that having the body pulled apart is lethal?? Dyanega (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that should be stated specifically. Lot's of lizards can lose their tail and survive, many crabs can lose a leg and then regrow it, if you cut a sea star in half it will grow into two sea stars, there's even a species of small aquatic worm which will grow two heads if you cut it's head in half. Michael1115 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bee demographics!!!

I'm surprised to see no one has given data on how many bees form an average colony, how many of these are drones, how many workers (how many of which type of workers, etc.) and such things... The article on "africanized honey bees" says they have more guarding bees, but that's meaningless in itself, without data on how much guarding bees either have (it also contradicts itself by claiming africanized honey bees usurp non-africanized honey bee hives and then calling it a myth some paragraph's later but that's another matter altogether that does not fits in here)Undead Herle King (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion but easier said than done. I guess the reason it isn't covered is that it's difficult to generalise about an 'average colony' (or even an average honey bee without misleadingly just talking about A. mellifera) given the marked differences between species, the flexibility of individual colony members and the feedback loops involved in things like worker behavioral cycles and pretty much everything else. Some aspects are covered to some extent in Worker bee although without refs and I would expect that that article is just talking about A. mellifera workers without saying so. We should have something though. How about, the average honey bee in the average colony spends most of it's adult life either resting or casually strolling around checking stuff/doing meta-work ? It's approximately correct. Perhaps not. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I guess standards are hard to find, I'm no entomologist so I can't know better, but I had guess there are ranges of normalcy or something like that...Undead Herle King (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong image of a bee: it's a fly

The image file Beeonplumblossom.jpg is tagged as honey bee, but actually it's a fly (Diptera): it only has two wings, the antennae are very short and its eyes are typically flyish. Very probably it belongs to the family Sirphidae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.6.37.95 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2009 February 23

Done.[10][11] Please feel welcome to fix things like this yourself, if you like. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is Commons:File:Hoverflyonplumblossom.jpg now. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecological importance of bees

Someone has created an article originally titled Life without bees. I didn't see a good place to put a paragraph about their ecological importance. Pirate^Argh!!1! 08:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that article surviving. It's an essay. I don't think we improve this article or help readers by linking to it so I've removed the link for now. There is already a mention of their role in pollination. Having said that, the line 'However, penguins and fish don't need bees to sustain their diet' is marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Conditioned responding to magnetic fields by honeybees

These references do show that bees are affected by mag fields and orrient there combs accordingly, and that external mag fields make them agressive. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w47llxg4042415p4/

Journal Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 0340-7594 (Print) 1432-1351 (Online) Issue Volume 157, Number 1 / January, 1985 DOI 10.1007/BF00611096 Pages 67-71 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Sunday, December 12, 2004

Add to marked items 

Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article

Conditioned responding to magnetic fields by honeybees Michael M. Walker1, 2 and M. E. Bitterman1

(1) Békésy Laboratory of Neurobiology, University of Hawaii, 1993 East-West Road, 96822 Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (2) Present address: Southwest Fisheries Center, National Fisheries Service, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, P.O. Box 271, 92038 La Jolla, California, USA

Accepted: 25 February 1985

Summary Individual honeybees were trained in two experiments to come for sucrose solution to a target set on a shelf before an open laboratory window. On some visits, the target was presented in the ambient geomagnetic field, and on other visits in a field modified in the vicinity of the target by passing a direct current through a coil under the shelf. The target contained 50% sucrose when it was in one of the two fields and 20% sucrose when it was in the other. Tested subsequently with a pair of targets, one in the ambient field, one in the modified field, and both containing tap water, the animals significantly preferred the target in the field in which they had been given the 50% sucrose during training. Four modified fields, produced with different coils and currents, were discriminated equally well from the ambient field, and performance was as good when the 50% sucrose was given in the ambient field as when it was given in the modified field. Data are provided also to illustrate the excellent discriminative performance attainable when two targets are presented on each training visit — one in a modified field, the other in the ambient field — and choice of one is rewarded with 50% sucrose while choice of the other is punished with mild electric shock. Our results show that foragers attend to magnetic stimuli at the feeding site and that discriminative training techniques are appropriate for the study of magnetoreception and its mechanism in honeybees.

Hyperactiviey of honey bees in magnetic fields: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/warnke_bee_world_76.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fidelity of honey bees to one species of plant on a foraging trip

I'm writing some educational materials about bees at the moment, and I've seen it mentioned in a few places that honey bees are particularly beneficial to certain plants as they are faithful to a particular species of plant, either for a particular hive, or on a single foraging trip. I haven't found any reference for it though. Googling turns up lots of results about sexual fidelity. Does anyone have any information, and could it go in the article? Keepstherainoff (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the behavior you are talking about has only been documented in the European (or western) honey bee so the content would like fit better in that article than in this one that discusses multiple species of honey bee. Here is a cite that quickly turned up in Google. [12] The problem is that this behavior is so well understood (as the author notes, since the time of Aristotle) that there are relatively few modern articles documenting such basic observations. By the way, it was new to me, too, but it's very old news among bee researchers.
I do remember a much more recent article that talked about diversity patterns in foraging. Apparently, any one bee demonstrates fidelity and her sisters do as well but about 10% of her half-sisters can typically found investigating alternate floral sources. From the hive's point of view, this is optimal because it means that an alternate is likely to be already in small production when the main flow shuts down for the day. (Many flowers only produce nectar or produce more nectar at certain times of day.) Unfortunately, I've been unable to rediscover that article this morning. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the way it worked was much more akin to scheduling in an appointment book i.e. floral constancy is time dependent. For example, I don't think that you can teach an Apis mellifera forager that 2 different species of flower produce food at the same time of day. You can teach them that they produce food at different times of day and they will efficiently keep to their appointments with each species at the designated time (i.e. they can schedule their foraging to visit particular species at the best time of day resource-wise for each species). James Gould and Carol Grant Gould worked on this so searching for their names may turn up something useful. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a whole article about flower constancy which I seem to have missed. I don't know whether this is a cross-referencing issue, or just my poor Google/Wiki-fu. Bring on the semantic web. Keepstherainoff (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it is, you aren't alone. I haven't seen that one either. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's not linked to by many pages. Might work on that over lunch. <- Oops, apparently I don't know how to do links like that...Keepstherainoff (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Like this. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sprinkled little bits of the flower constancy page into western honey bee, pollination, butterflies and bumblebee in the hopes that even if it doesn't fit, the information is in the article to be edited by someone else. Hope that isn't bad wikiquette. Keepstherainoff (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it wing wear which kills honey bees after 500 miles of flight?

I recall reading that the flight muscles lose the ability to process glycogen, and this is the reason workers die after the flight-intensive segment of their life.

I am a beekeeper and I have look very closely at the wings of bees and have noticed that the wings are sometimes very battered and damaged.

James and Carol Gould's book says that the flight muscles wear out after about 800 kilometres (500 mi) for Apis mellifera. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions and observations

I read with interest this article, fixed some errors and moved some photos. I now have a few questions and some observations:

1. "Honey bees are the only extant members of the tribe Apini". I assume that other genera co-existed with Apis but they are now extint. Is that correct?

2. "Currently, there are only seven recognised species of honey bee with a total of 44 subspecies". I only see 3 species listed. What are the names of the other 4?

3. Why is that "only members of the genus Apis are true honey bees"? I assume there is a specific reason.

4. "There is one recognised species in subgenus Megapis". I assume it is Apis dorsata since the paragraph following the sentence only talks about Apis dorsata and variants. If that is the case, then this information should be added in parentheses at the end of the sentence.

5. "This would fit the hypothesis that the ancestral stock of cave-nesting honey bees was separated into the Western group of E Africa ...". Should it be East or Eastern? Please fix as neeeded.

6. "they are often more aggressive than European bees but are more resistant to disease and are better foragers but do not create as much of a surplus as European bees". The sentence is confusing and that "but" does not really work as a disjunctive conjunction because it does not create contrast. The sentence needs to be checked and reworked.

7. "The outside edges of the cluster stay at about 46-48 degrees." I assume it should be 46-48 °F. Please correct as needed for consistency.

8. "worker bees orient the dance in the actual compass direction of the resource to which they are recruiting." I don't understand this sentence. I think it might need to be fixed.

9. Why do drones die? Why do workers die if they lose their sting?

10. How long does a honey bee live? Do bees ever stop working or go to sleep?

ICE77 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only answer a few of your questions and even then my answers will be specific to the European Honey Bee. I suspect they are not in this article because the answers may not generalize to the other races that count as honey bees.

7 - Yes, that temp in in Farenheit. The range is a bit narrower than what I've seen in other references, though. A recent article (in BeeCulture, I think) showed more variation by race than was previously understood.

8 - I think this wording is incorrect. The waggle dance shows direction relative to the sun, not to the compass. That is, if the "straight" run is vertical on the comb, fly toward the sun. If the "straight" run is 30° to the right of vertical, fly with the sun off your left shoulder. That's a clumsy, anthropomorphic example. I think the bee learning and communication article may explain it better.

9 - Drones die in the fall because the workers forcibly eject them from the hive to starve, freeze or get eaten. Drones die after mating because their genitalia rip loose as the final part of the act. Workers die after stinging because the stinger is barbed. Both the stinger and venom sac rip loose after stinging. By the way, the muscles in the stinger and around the venom sac continue to work for several minutes, ratcheting the stinger deeper into the skin and continuing to pump in venom until the sac is empty.

10 - A queen can live 2-7 years. A drone lives until fall regardless of whether born early or late in the season. A worker will work herself to death in as little as 5 weeks in summer but can live for several months during the winter. (Foraging is by far the most strenuous part of a worker's existence.)

Rossami (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

2. I think you are mixing up subgenus with species.

8. is referring to Apis andreniformis and Apis florea. Their dance runs on top of their nests simply point at the source.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the answer folks! Rossami: I fixed 7. in the article. I read 9. and ... OMG! Sean.Holyland: You are right about 2. I got confused because the table at the top of the article says Species instead of Subgenus.

ICE77 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

honeybee vs. honey bee

Boingboing.com today ran a story on honey bees, and included info from a "professional apiculturalist" Cliff Van Eaton who insists that, and I quote:

"A well-trained honey bee scientist wouldn't spell the name "honeybee", even though you'll find it mistakenly spelled this way in a number of dictionaries (as well as on the MS spell checker), and even in Wikipedia. The biological convention is that the name of an insect is separated into two words when the insect is what the name implies. So "honey bee" is separated into two words, since its a bee that collects honey, whereas "butterfly" is one word since it isn't a fly that produces butter."

Thus, in accordance with what was said above on Jan 17, 2006, under the paragraph "added wiktionary link though I am unsatisfied," I think the main article should be located at "honey bee" and have "honeybee" redirect to it. I think it also makes sense to have a short blurb about the spelling differences in the article, too. If others agree, I will make the changes. Blazotron 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I came here from the BoingBoing article as well, and while I don't claim any kind of entomological expertise, your proposal makes sense to me. Hopefully some others more knowledgable in the world of insects can also voice their thoughts either way. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the move (to conform to general scientific usage). Feel free to restore if there are objections. -- AmbientArchitecture 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was little confused by this: "There are no honey bees native to the Americas." because Mayans had bees that produced honey, altrough they are not called "honey bees". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingless_bee#Mayan_stingless_bees_of_Central_America

Is "honey bee" english convention (vulgar name of species, or genus or whatever) or does it simple mean "bees that produce honey"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.109.53 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

linking to Colony Collapse Disorder

The idea behind having a link to the CCD article is so any discussion about it can be put into that article, or the Western honey bee article, rather than here - for the time being, having a link here is enough. The text "its cause (or causes) remain unknown. In Europe, honey bee stocks have been declining for several years, but this is mainly due to ecological degradation. As of April 2007, there is no confirmed mass occurrence of CCD outside North America. Note that some 10% of honey bee hives on average will die each winter due to a range of bee diseases; these are either known or suspected not to be the cause of CCD." would, properly, belong on the CCD page, if anywhere. If, at some future date, someone discovers that CCD affects other honey bee species besides A. mellifera, then it might be worth discussing the topic on THIS page - but not until that happens. Dyanega 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent yahoo article referencing Scientific American suggests that CCD is caused by a parasitic fly. Suggest this is worth incorporating here and in the main CCD article. http://news.yahoo.com/zombie-fly-parasite-killing-honeybees-230200867.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.211 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• The fly does not cause CCD, and is only suggested as a possible vector of one of the fungi implicated in the disease. This information has already been incorporated into the appropriate WP articles. This article (Honey bee) is NOT appropriate, since the fly only attacks one species of honey bee, which has its own WP article. Dyanega (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)