Talk:Honey bee/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Swarm and hive splitting

There is little to no information regarding the splitting and relocation of hives in the wild; This is what I suggest;

"In the wild, when a hive is ready to split, single bee scouts are sent out in all directions from the exiting hive to seek potential new locations, and report back to the hive. Ideal, potential locations are typically, hollowed out areas usually tree hollows, rock crevices or even buildings, with a small, sun facing entry. As many as a dozen new locations may be chosen. Then, a second group is sent as a measuring party (between 20-50 each) to examine each potential location. This second group typically is sent on a bright sunny day with little wind. The bees will enter the hollow and take measurements as they travel deeper and deeper inside following the glow of the required second sun facing exit. Then, the measuring parties report back to the hive to discuss and choose the new hive location. Ideal locations have no less than two sun facing entrances, large enough for the hive to thrive, but also small enough so the bees can easily regulate the hives temperature. Usually, the hive moves within 5 to 7 days of the measuring. During this time, single scouts travel back and forth from the chosen location to make sure nothing has changed to the new location. If something has dramatically changed to the new location, the entire process starts over again.

Once either process has begun, the old queen normally leaves the hive with the hatching of the first queen cells. She leaves accompanied by a large number of bees, predominantly young bees (wax-secretors), who form the basis of the new hive. As soon as the new location is set, and the flying conditions are right (sunny and little wind), the entire swarm, as many as 50,000 bees, moves in. Within a matter of hours, they build new wax brood combs, using honey stores that the young bees have filled themselves with before leaving the old hive. Only young bees can secrete wax from special abdominal segments, and this is why swarms tend to contain more young bees. Often, a number of virgin queens accompany the first swarm (the 'prime swarm'), and the old queen is replaced as soon as a daughter queen mates and begins laying. Otherwise, she is quickly superseded in the new home."

Please tear this apart as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjozoko (talk • contribs)

I think the tone of the proposed content anthropomorphizes bees more than is justified. The tone implies a conscious and sequential decision-making process which does not accurately match what the colony is actually doing. While I can not speak for other species, for Apis Mellifera some of the specific statements above are incorrect. In particular:
  1. There is no segmented "measuring party" - there are merely more scouts who are recruited by the earlier scouts to evaluate the potential location. There is no fixed number nor even a reliable range of scouts assigned to any location - just a steady increase in the recruitment of the scout bees until a form of consensus (or maybe a critical mass of recruitment) is reached. (20-50 is the approximate number of total scouts sent out by the colony for scouting duty.) The scouts do their recruitment by dancing on the surface of the swarm in their holding site.
  2. The scouting process is not restricted to "a bright sunny day with little wind", nor does the process take "5 to 7 days". Western honeybees leave the old colony when the replacement queen is near emergence. While they won't leave into pouring rain, they will swarm on a windy day if that's when the replacement is ready. (In many parts of the country, if they had to wait for a sunny day with little wind, they'd never get out at all.)
  3. Once they swarm, the old queen and her half of the hive leaves to find a temporary resting place, usually only a few hundred feet from the original colony and rarely more than a quarter mile away. (It may be the branch of a tree or the underside of a table but it is not usually a cavity. See some of the pictures at Swarming (honey bee).) The scouts leave from there. They find, evaluate and swarm the colony to their final home within a matter of hours - sometimes as short as an afternoon, more rarely taking up to 48 hours. I am not aware of any sources showing that the scouting process begins before the swarm leaves to that temporary holding area.
  4. A swarm of 50,000 bees would be exceptionally large. Since there are between 3000 and 4000 bees per pound generally, that would be an eleven + pound swarm. Very few colonies reach 50,000 bees total at the height of the season, much less have that many to release to a swarm. Swarms are generally in the 3 pound range - closer to 10,000 bees.
  5. I suppose it's possible that virgin queens might accompany a swarm - it would be very difficult to be sure - but I am aware of no source documenting that phenomenon.
Rossami (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Exploding Genetalia?

Apparantly I have read somewhere that after a drone mates with the a queen, his penis either explodes or breaks off? Ouch!- Mathdontlie— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathdontlie (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Picture to describe the organization of the hive

I just ulpoaded a scheme that shortly summarizes the sexes and roles division of bees in a colony. The information used for the picture is taken from this and other pages of wikipedia about honey bees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilian91 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Honey bee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Origin

Puzzling statement:

"Honey bees appear to have their center of origin in South and Southeast Asia (including the Philippines), as all the extant species except Apis mellifera are native to that region. Notably, living representatives of the earliest lineages to diverge (Apis florea and Apis andreniformis) have their center of origin there.[2]"

Now isn't Apis mellifera the most commonly used honey bee? Its origin is not in SE Asia. It's great to know of the origin of these other species, but that doesn't mean that A mellifera has its origin there as well. Kortoso (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Cuddle death

Thanks to User:InedibleHulk, I just became aware of Worker bees will cuddle an old queen bee to death!, which contains a nicely narrated video. Maybe it can be used for this article somehow. The text says "Source: wikipedia", but it contains a bunch of information not included here. I wonder where that's from. — Sebastian 18:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, but here is a bit more on balling/cuddling. Maybe not always malicious. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

9 species instead of 7

I had a few exchanges with Jamie D. Ellis, Ph.D. in entomology from the University of Florida. We were debating on the number of species in the Apis genus and I was trying to understand if the list should have 7 or 9 since he mentioned that laboriosa and nuluensis should be listed as well. However, according to this article, they are listed respectively under dorsata and cerana. Dr. Ellis said said: "Wikipedia is wrong. Most taxonomists consider laboriosa its own species now (the cited Engel manuscript is 17 years old at this point). The same is true for nuluensis (I would argue, more definitively so for nuluensis). Thus, there are 9 species of Apis. I’m pretty sure about this as I work on honey bee speciation and have worked with the Ruttner collection in Germany (the world Apis collection – regarded as the world’s most authoritative collection on Apis). Of course, taxonomy changes all the time so all of these may be reclassified someday. In the meantime, I and others believe there to be 9 species." Dr. Ellis is quite an authority on the subject. You can look him up for more information. Based on what I wrote here, laboriosa and nuluensis should be listed in this article instead of being listed under dorsata and cerana.

ICE77 (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Information on the collection of pollen and nectar is missing!

Could somebody please add missing information on the process of collection of pollen and nectar by bees?

It could feature info on things like how the locations for collection are chosen, how areas already grazed so to say are potentially avoided, how the collection proceeds and whatnot.

--Fixuture (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honey bee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Map

Added: left|thumb|Distribution of honeybees around the world

The map is obviously mistaken, cf. the article "Cuevas de la Araña."HJJHolm (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Why? The map shows honey bees across Spain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Honey bee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is bee brood a product?

Shickorbob has added a section on bee brood under "Products", citing many sources but not stating why the brood is considered a product. Without that connection, itself reliably cited, the addition is frankly original research. If this is hard to grasp, then consider the situation if an editor added Varroa mites as a product. They would truthfully cite it to reliable scientific journals, but it would be WP:OR because nobody considers mite production a desirable goal, and the papers would be full of mites but empty of products. In other words, the section's current text is off-beam: what is required is cited text explaining not what brood is but why it's a product,[1] and (say) how many million dollars a year are generated by the production,[2] which countries buy and sell it as a product,[3] etc. If the FAO ref talks about brood as a product, then that is the one and only ref that's needed, and a paraphrased discussion of that specific question is all that the section should contain. Hope that's clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

On a related point, the section asserts by including a "main" link that it is a summary version of the Brood (honey bee) article. It isn't. That mainly uncited article doesn't mention being a product either. It might be better (in a logical world) to begin by citing that article decently with reliable sources, summarizing it in that article's lead, and then bringing a cited summary over here. Just mentioning it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Nutrition

I would like to add a nutrition section to the honey bee page. I welcome and encourage any feedback prior to publishing!

Nutrition:

            Honey bees obtain all of their nutritional requirements from a diverse combination of pollen and nectar. Pollen is the only natural protein source for honey bees. Adult worker honey bees consume 3.4-4.3 mg of pollen per day to meet a dry matter requirement of 66-74% protein.[1] The rearing of one larva requires 125-187.5 mg pollen or 25-37.5 mg protein for proper development.[1] proteins are broken down into amino acids, ten of which are considered essential to honey bees: methionine, tryptophan, arginine, lysine, histidine, phenylalanine, isoleucine, threonine, leucine, and valine. Of these amino acids, honey bees require highest concentrations of leucine, isoleucine, and valine, however elevated concentrations of arginine and lysine are required for brood rearing.[2] In addition to these amino acids, some B vitamins including biotin, folic acid, nicotinamide, riboflavin, thiamine, pentothenate, and most importantly, pyridoxine are required to rear larvae. Pyridoxine is the most prevalent B vitamin found in royal jelly and concentrations vary throughout the foraging season with lowest concentrations found in May and highest concentrations found in July and August. Honey bees lacking dietary pyridoxine were unable to rear brood.[2]

Pollen is also a lipid source for honey bees ranging from 0.8% to 18.9%.[1] Lipids are metabolized during the brood stage for precursors required for future biosynthesis. Fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K are not considered essential but have shown to significantly improve the number of brood reared.[1]Honey bees ingest phytosterols from pollen to produce 24-methylenecholesterol and other sterols as they cannot directly synthesize cholesterol from phytosterols. Nurse bees have the ability to selectively transfer sterols to larvae through brood food.[1]

Nectar is collected by foraging worker bees as a source of water and carbohydrates in the form of sucrose. The dominant monosaccharides in honey bee diets are fructose and glucose but the most common circulating sugar in hemolymph is trehalose which is a disaccharide consisting of two glucose molecules.[3] Adult worker honey bees require 4 mg of utilizable sugars per day and larvae require about 59.4 mg of carbohydrates for proper development.[1]

Honey bees require water to maintain osmotic homeostasis, prepare liquid brood food, and to cool the hive through evaporation. A colony’s water needs can generally be met by nectar foraging as it has high water content. Occasionally on hot days or when nectar is limited, foragers will collect water from streams or ponds to meet the needs of the hive.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail.langevin.uconn (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Brodschneider, Robert; Crailsheim, Karl (2010-05-01). "Nutrition and health in honey bees". Apidologie. 41 (3): 278–294. doi:10.1051/apido/2010012. ISSN 0044-8435.
  2. ^ a b Anderson, Leroy M.; Dietz, A. (1976). "Pyridoxine Requirement of the Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera) For Brood Rearing". Apidologie. 7 (1): 67–84. Retrieved 4/7/16. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Karasov, William H.; Martinez del Rio, Carlos (2008). Physiological Ecology: How Animals Process Energy, Nutrients, and Toxins. Princeton: Princeton Press. pp. 63–66. ISBN 9780691074535. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ Kuhnholz, Susanne; Seeley, Thomas D. (1997). "The Control of Water Collection in Honey Bee Colonies". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 41 (6): 407–422.

Reproductive workers/worker competition

Two illustrations in this article deal with worker egg laying, but the text doesn't seem to. Would anyone object to my copying in the existing text from the Apis mellifera article? IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Aren't bee bread and bee pollen the same thing?

“Bee pollen” and “bee bread” even link to the same article and mention that they’re the same. In the “Bee products” section, however, they seem to be classified seperately. Shickorbob (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference, not unlike between nectar and honey. Bees forage pollen in the wild. They store it in cells, covered with nectar where it ferments and becomes bee bread. Both can be harvested, the later being some 10x more expensive. Smalcat (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Varroa Mite

The Varroa Mite Varroa destructor is a leading disorders of CCD and honey bee pests, yet it's not mentioned under the Parasites nor Colony collapse disorder sections. Any idea where it would fit better? 2620:0:1000:3315:7501:7133:8F7D:F4E5 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This attacks only one species of honey bee, and is linked in the article for that species: Western honey bee. Dyanega (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Not so; Apis cerana was Varroa's original host, with the mites jumping to A. mellifera in the 1960s. I believe the Asian bees have grooming behavior which limits the ill effects of the mites, but it is still a parasite on them. Brief mention in the "parasites" section would be appropriate, in my view. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Number of species

Copying here some discussion (link) from WP:ERRORS on the inconsistencies in this article on the number of species in the genus Apis:

The blurb refers to "7–12 species", but the honey bee article says that "historically seven to eleven species are recognized".--Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The target article, Western honey bee, says 7-12 and unlike the honey bee text, that assertion is actually cited twice. Not that I can verify the cites, because they're in journals. But I don't see a strong reason to change it at this stage. Also, if the range is there to convey an uncertainty as to the actual figure, then 7-12 is technically correct even if the number actually falls somewhere between 7 and 11.....  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Both 11 and 12 may be underestimates. Michael Engel's 1999 paper is cited in both articles.[1] On page 167, he lists 13 species in the genus Apis (cerana, koschevnikovi, mellifera, nigrocincta, †armbrusteri, dorsata, andreniformis, florea, †vetusta, †henshawi, †longtibia, †miocenica, †petrefacta), with 7 species still living, and 6 extinct. (He also catalogues the ridiculous number of synonyms, including around 90 for Apis mellifera, and mentions that around 600 species have been suggested in the genus Apis but many are now placed in other genera, such as the bumblebees of genus Bombus.)
Our article on Honey bee (genus Apis) says "seven to eleven" in the lead, but the section on Honey bee#Living and fossil honey bees (Apini: Apis) then lists those 13 plus 3 more extinct species (†"Miocene 1", †neartica, †lithohermaea) making 16 in all - cited to a 2009 paper by Engel et al. The full version of that paper is linked in the article, and has a table listing all 16 which clearly draws on and updates the 1999 work. In the absence of another paper since then, we should go with Engel's 16. 213.205.240.201 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
What if we remove the numbers from the blurb? The appropriate article(s) can hash out the differences in quantification among sources. Killiondude (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As indicated above, I think we should be saying sixteen species recognised in the genus, seven living and nine extinct, based on Engel et al. 2009 (unless there is something more recent/better?). Some work will be needed to weave that in, and update the lead and infobox. Anyone object? 213.205.240.201 (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That should be fine as long as it's fully cited; it would be wise to search for more recent papers before proceeding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Claims of Human Dependency

User Just_plain_Bill has repeatedly attempted to remove ALL information attempting to address the widespread, apocryphal belief that all of humanity would die without honeybees, AND describing the nature of the honeybee as a generalized pollinator. He claims this information should only be on other pages, not on honeybee, even though it obviously, directly involves the honeybee, itself. I open this section in order to establish a consensus that does not censor all of the information, but can still improve the section as needed. — Kaz (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

A large part of that section is about crops whose fruiting or propagation has nothing to do with insect pollination. Wikipedia's article on Pollinator decline is a better place to mention and debunk the myth. Brief mention in this article would be appropriate, with a link to the appropriate article or section.
Also, "repeatedly"? That's not what the history shows. I can't speak for anyone else's intent, but I'm not trying to censor anything here. Instead, I want to see it find a fitting place in the structure of information that is this encyclopedia. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I was confusing two different people who tried to revert that section wholesale, even separate edits I'd made discussing the nature of the honeybee as a pollinator...yourself and another user. Getting to the actual point at hand: It's absolutely necessary to discuss the impression that humanity would die out without honeybees, in the honeybee article. I added detailed explanation of how most crops propagate without honeybees, so the reader could understand exactly why the fear isn't true. I actually had felt that leaving it out would be more likely to get the section removed. If you feel that it should be condensed to be more efficient, I'm fine with that. But we do need to show the reader SOME explanation of why most crops do not, in fact, require (or even benefit from) honeybees. And, as I said, both of you had also removed edits to the other section, explaining the function of honeybees as pollinators, that they're generalized, visiting many different species, and so on. I take it you don't actually object to that material being in the article. — Kaz (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that anything related specifically and exclusively to the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) is not really appropriate for THIS article, which refers to all of the species of Apis collectively, including those that are not managed by humans. Just because some people don't realize that there are 11 different honey bees species is no reason to stuff beekeeping information here. What's appropriate is to put content about Apis mellifera on the pages for the species it actually applies to. Dyanega (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The generalized nature of the honeybee applies to all of the species. Likewise, a number of the species are domesticated, including cerana japonica and the infamous mellifera scutellata, so the fact that most people are unaware that there are 11 species means the caveat about survival does apply specifically to this page, which covers all of the domesticated species. Essentially, the same people ignorant enough to think that humanity will die without honeybees also thinks of honeybees as the genus, not the species per se. They just don't know the difference. They are coming to this article looking for information about the "honeybee" upon whose survival all of humanity depends. To them, the Japanese and African honey bees are part of the whole. — Kaz (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Extending Bee Products section

I have wanted to extend the "Bee Products" section with "bee venom", for which there is a small market in the cosmetic industry and it is also used for bee venom alergy treatments. I have made my first attempt which was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honey_bee&oldid=prev&diff=848068986). Could I get a second opinion on that. If indeed my contribution does not meet wikipedia standards I would love some guidance on how to make it better. I find the fact that we harness bee venom fascinating and worthy of wikipedia. Smalcat (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The editor who reverted your edit specifically stated that the citation you used did not comply with WP:MEDRS guidelines. Maybe they know something I don't, but at least superficially, Clinical Interventions in Aging appears to be a legitimate peer-reviewed source, published by Dove Medical Press. I'm not sure what, if anything, constitutes evidence that this isn't a reliable medical source, but maybe they or someone else here can explain. At the very least, you're right to bring it here to the talk page, as the deletion should offer a more specific criticism and justification. Dyanega (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Note that the references in the article on Apitherapy offer a number of substantive studies documenting significant risks of using bee venom for medical treatments, which run counter to the claims of the study you cite, including very specific statements made in the article (e.g. "Long-term treatment with bee venom-containing cosmetics could be safe, because the irritation potential of bee venom is negligible.") There are a number of similar very questionable statements made, so there is reason to be suspicious as to the legitimacy of the science involved, and the journal itself. It is also instructive that if you start to type the phrase "Is Dove Press a predatory publisher?" into Google, it autofills almost the entire phrase, suggesting that LOTS of people have questioned their legitimacy. The publisher was evidently on a well-known "blacklist" that has apparently ceased to exist, but as one digs into it, it raises all sorts of red flags. Following WP policies, it might be possible to cite a Dove Press journal so long as the citation acknowledges that the publisher is under suspicion of publishing fraudulent work? Dyanega (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated Dyanega. I am not too keen on publishing something that is suspected to be fraudulent. I also appreciate the investigative method you demonstrated on deciding the credibility of the source. In any event; however, my primary goal was just to add bee venom poison to the list as there exists producers, products and a market for it, regardless if there are any health or beauty benefits. It was only when trying to find a citation for the existence of bee venom as a bee product, that I found the source which seemed to be a normal peer reviewed article. I would still like to add my original text without the statement of benefits sourced by the article. My problem is, I have a hard time to decide what source would be good enough to that end. Cosmetics with bee venom are plenty but sources about the fact are mostly blogs and shops. Smalcat (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Not only is the journal quality suspect, but the study itself was conducted on only 22 women, making it preliminary research (WP:PRIMARY) and not WP:MEDRS-compliant; i.e., as the source guide for choosing strong, high-quality reviews for the encyclopedia, MEDRS, particularly WP:MEDASSESS, emphasizes systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis of completed, large-subject-number clinical trials. Simply, the source quality offered by Smalcat for evidence of cosmetic clinical efficacy and safety is too weak for an encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

List of honey plants article

I believe the List of honey plants page should be deleted because honey bees are polylectic and will collect pollen from almost anything they can fit in. I left a comment on the talk page. I'm adding a comment here to catch the attention of editors interested in honey bees. There might be a useful list to be made on that theme (I see there's a list of crops pollinated by bees) but the page needs work to make a case for its relevance and verifiability. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Outdated further reading

Moved from article as redundant, extraneous, non-inline sources. --Zefr (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Adam, Brother. In Search of the Best Strains of Bees. Hebden Bridge, W. Yorks: Northern Bee Books, 1983.
  • Adam, Brother. Bee-keeping at Buckfast Abbey. Geddington, Northants: British Bee Publications, 1975.
  • Aldersey-Williams, H. Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2003.
  • Alexander, P. Rough Magic: A Biography of Sylvia Plath. New York: Da Capo Press, 2003.
  • Allan, M. Darwin and his flowers. London: Faber & Faber, 1977.
  • Alston, F. Skeps, their History, Making and Use. Hebden Bridge, W. Yorks: Northern Bee Books, 1987.
  • Barrett, P. The Immigrant Bees 1788 to 1898, 1995.
  • Barrett, P. William Cotton.
  • Beuys, J. Honey is Flowing in All Directions. Heidelberg: Edition Staeck, 1997.
  • Bevan, E. The Honey-bee: Its Natural History, Physiology and Management. London: Baldwin, Cradock & Joy, 1827.
  • Bill, L. For the Love of Bees. Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles, 1989.
  • Bodenheimer, F.S. Insects as Human Food The Hague: Dr. W. Junk, 1951.
  • Brothwell, D., Brothwell, P. Food in Antiquity. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969.
  • Engel, Michael S. & Grimaldi, David (2005): Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kak, Subhash C. (1991): The Honey Bee Dance Language Controversy. The Mankind Quarterly Summer 1991: 357–365. HTML fulltext
  • Lanman, Connor H. The Plight of the Bee: The Ballad of Man and Bee. San Francisco, 2008.
  • Lindauer, Martin (1971): Communication among social bees. Harvard University Press.

Honey bees in literature

According to Diodorus Siculus (90BC-30BC) (Bibliotheca historica, Book V 70.5) (36BC-30BC) “wishing to preserve an immortal memorial of his close association with the bees” Zeus changed their color to golden bronze and “since the region lay at a very great altitude [Mount Ida], where fierce winds blew about it and heavy snows fell, he made the bees insensible to such things and unaffected by them”.

Does anybody know of a source that talks about honey bees that predates the above in literature?

ICE77 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Parasites

I added the Expand template to the parasite section. There are lots, as seen in the Diseases of the honeybee. Should we rename that article to "Parasites of honeybees" (since pathogens are also parasites) and make this section just a "main article" link? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

some science classifying bees as omnivores; pollen, honey, and microbes

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surprise-bees-need-meat/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gboq (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Fertile queens, sterile workers

diff Strictly speaking, workers are not sterile, and will lay eggs in a queenless hive, or one where the queen is failing. "Laying workers" is considered an abnormal condition, and can be detected by visual inspection of uncapped brood comb, with the eggs placed on the walls of cells, instead of centered in the bottom the cells, as a queen normally places them. If I think of a compact, accurate way to clarify it in that section, I will add it. In the meantime, the text is accurate, although incomplete and possibly confusing. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wood pile hive question

I HAVE A HONEY BEE HIVE IN A WOOD PILE THAT HAS TO BE MOVED------I WOULD RATHER NOT KILL THEM,CAN ANYONE HELP WITH SOME INFO. THANKS WRONGWAY@ECENET.COM

Answered offline. The short answer. 1) Are you sure they are honeybees? 2) Do you want to become a beekeeper or just get rid of them? 3) Contact your local beekeeping association. (Most counties have one. Most extension offices or university agricultural departments know how to get in touch with them.) 4) Check out the archives of bee-specific websites such as the BEE-L listserve. http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l Rossami 21:12, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Pyramids"-- relevance

The intro ends with a reference to Egyptian pyramids:

Honeybees have been domesticated at least since the time of the building of the Egyptian pyramids.

It sounds really misleading, like bees were used as glue to stick pyramid bricks together. What is the relevance?! If Egyptians used it, say "Egyptians practiced bee-culture". If people started using it during Egyptian time, say "Honeybee has been used by humans since 2100 BCE." Say what it's relevant straight-forwardly! --Menchi 05:26, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "used by humans since 2100 BCE" implies a precision that can not be supported by the archeological evidence. Beekeeping may have started far earlier than that - we just don't know. At the other extreme, "Egyptians practiced bee-culture" loses the meaning of the sentence by taking out all references to time - the Egyptians could have started yesterday and the sentence would still be true. The relevance of the sentence is that it defines beekeeping as an activity that has been going on for thousands of years; that the origins of beekeeping have been lost in time; and that the earliest known references to domesticated beekeeping are found in Egyptian ruins. I think the sentence above says all that in a very concise and easy-to-read manner. But I'm always open to improvements. Rossami 13:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How many bees in a hive?

The article first mentions thousands, later hundreds of drones usually living in a hive. Which number is correct? Puzzled, --219.207.92.201 13:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The number is seasonally variable. At the end of the spring buildup, which is the normal swarm season for wild bees, and the time many queens have to be mated, the drone population is very high. Some strong hives will have many thousands of drones, as much as a third of the population. Weaker hives usually don't produce as high a proportion, but will still have the most in late spring. During summer the number of drones dwindles down. By fall there may be only a few hundred. In the southern US, a strong hive may keep a few drones all winter. Weaker hives or hives in the northern US and Canada will throw out all the drones to freeze or starve with the first cold weather. I've seen hives keep drones most of the winter in South Carolina, then throw them out during a March storm, so this latitude is about the turning point for overwintering drones. When drone rearing begins in spring, queen breeders start their season. Some will try to move the date ahead a bit by stimulative feeding of the hives, but not many drones will be raised until there are sources of good natural pollen.
An old beekeeper I knew a half century ago used to consider the drones worthless parasites in the hives and he would sit at the entrance of his hives and stab drones with toothpicks. My own experience has been that bees that are not allowed to have the normal component of drones do not thrive. I call it a loss of morale... Pollinator 14:55, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Both and neither. It depends on:
  1. the race of honeybee (Some produce more drones than others)
  2. the health of the hive (A healthy colony about to swarm generally produces more drones than a colony in distress. The big exception is a colony which has lost its queen and develops a laying worker who can only lay drone eggs.)
  3. the time of year (In the height of summer when the colony is at its strongest, there could easily be thousands of drones in the hive. In the winter, that number drops down to almost none. Conventional wisdom used to be that all drones were kicked out and allowed to die each fall. Recent research has shown, however, that some races do keep some drones alive through the winter under some conditions. Research is continuing to determine if this is a universal occurence which was previously overlooked or if there is some unknown causal reason.)
  4. local climate (From the bees' point of view, winter comes much earlier in Alaska than in, say, Florida. There is some current research trying to correlate honeybee lifecycles to the concept of growing degree days.)
among other things. Hope that helps. Rossami 15:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Looks like Pollinator was answering the same question. Darned edit conflicts)

edits by User:68.219.225.139

In a series of edits today, anonymous user 68.219.225.139 deleted most of the content of this article leaving two short (though coherent) paragraphs. I believe a great deal of good content was lost during that edit. I'm not averse to streamlining this article if it needs it but such a sweeping change should probably be discussed here. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for the big deletions. The paragraphs look like they need to be included.Gzuckier 16:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abigail.langevin.uconn, Mirandasquillace.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shayma0414, Mholty10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Honey bee

The genus name Apis is Latin for "bee".[1][2] Although modern dictionaries may refer to Apis as either honey bee or honeybee, entomologist Robert Snodgrass asserts that correct usage requires two words, i.e. honey bee, as it is a kind or type of bee, whereas it is incorrect to run the two words together, as in dragonfly or butterfly, because the latter are not flies,[3] and have no connection with dragons or butter. Honey bee, not honeybee, is the listed common name in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, the Entomological Society of America Common Names of Insects Database, and the Tree of Life Web Project.[4][5][6]. --- f.sherin 2409:4072:8E8D:B1F:0:0:1888:5800 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't have any actual footnotes. The numbers there don't link to anything. Entomologists, no matter how eminent, do not control the common names or normal English usage. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
All the OP has done is copy the existing rendering of the article section on the etymology (as distinct from the entomology!), without saying anything new. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
What's the context for this? Is there any dispute about this. It's hone bee, not honeybee; as the article has it. — Aldaron • T/C 21:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Defense - citation request and removal.

Hi Zefr (and also Dyanega)

You removed a citation request that I made for the claim that other Hymenoptera have a barb on their sting. The reason given was that there is already a Citation Needed Banner, but if you examine this you will see that this Banner was created some time ago, and the Section has since received a good number of Sources. Although some of the Sources could be improved upon, it seems now acceptable to remove the Banner. This claim about other Hymenoptera having barbs was the only part that I felt needed a Source, therefore I requested one, which you then deleted - without this specific request, at that precise point, it is not clear to Wiki Editors where the last Source is required to have this Banner removed.

Therefore, IF there are no objections, I will go ahead and delete the CN Banner and then place a Citation Request at the required section. I think that should solve this slight disagreement. Thank you for your contributions.Bibby (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the CN Banner, and requested a Source for the Hymenoptera claim, if you can't find a Source after a period of time you may want to just delete the relevant part of this sentence "(and virtually all other Hymenoptera)", the sentence would then maybe need to be re-worded. BUT I think this claim may be accurate as I have been told it is correct by a Wiki Editor that knows much more about this than I, but I am still waiting for a Source for the claim. Lets wait and hope! Bibby (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
It's easier to find a clear statement to the opposite: namely, that many other hymenoptera do NOT have barbs. E.g., here is a paper that clearly states: Wasp, hornet, and yellow jacket stingers are not barbed and each insect is capable of delivering multiple venom-injecting stings without dying.[1] That alone makes the statement false. Consequently, I have gone ahead and removed that parenthetical sentence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fitzgerald, K. T.; Flood, A. A. (2006). "Hymenoptera stings". Clinical techniques in small animal practice. 21 (4): 194–204. doi:10.1053/j.ctsap.2006.10.002.

Images

Hello @Manticore: Honey bees have pollinated in the wild for tens of millions of years, while only being domesticated for the last few thousand years. If anything the image BuddhaPixel added should be first, and there is nothing wrong with two images. We need both to illustrate both parts of their history. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In principle, I can agree that pollen collection merits prominent visual presentation in the infobox, but the BuddhaPixel image merely shows a bee on a flower, without obvious evidence of pollen collection, no matter what the words in the caption may say. A better image might be File:Apis mellifera - Senecio paludosus - Keila.jpg, showing a bee dusted with pollen, with a packed pollen basket in plain view. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sltsangg (article contribs).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honey_bee/Archive_2&oldid=1184424264"