Talk:European dark bee

Promotion and conservation areas

Maybe it's just me but this section seems weirdly...judgemental? Lot of quote marks including for some things that do not need it as far as I can tell. "establishing racial purity" makes sense as it's presumably a direct quote from the (now defunct - citation updated to web archive link) page, but "native strains" doesn't need it, nor do I think "wing morphometry", a pretty standard bit of entomological technique, need scare quotes either. It may be unintentional but the use of quote marks across much of this section reads as if it intends to cast doubt upon what it's reporting - this is not Victorian pseudoscience regarding human races, this is bee sub-populations, landraces and local ecotypes. I've made a few small edits to improve readability and if I have time may try to overhaul some of the references.

In doing so I see some of the references do not actually support the text they are attached to: the Cornish bees website does not make the claims the reference implies, nor does the cbibbg reference following it in the sentence evidence that they are "claiming it is a separate subspecies", they say the mating patterns may hint it is, which is a pretty significant difference. Furthermore the sentence explaining that A. m. mellifera is not under threat from imported stock references a paper on an Irish study that includes in its abstract the acknowledgement that this population was unusual as most show significant introgression from other subspecies which I would consider quite relevant. Further to that the line "a further study across eight northwest European countries showed that their A. m. mellifera populations were genetically pure" references a paper which does not show that. To quote the abstract "Both data sets show that A. m. mellifera populations still exist in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Scotland and Ireland, but that they are threatened by gene flow from commercial honeybees." and "...analysis of the intergenic region indicated that gene-flow had hardly occurred in some populations, whereas almost 10% introgression was observed in other populations."

While I initially felt this article read like someone had an axe to grind with the subspecies, I feel it is in need of a larger overhaul now Hedge89 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hedge89, good to have a breathe of fresh air on this page!

If I see anything I think might be better changed, I'll mention it here first for us to agree on, unless it's very minor.

Just to reply to some of your comments; the reason for a lot of the "quote marks" is I know that some of the claims being made are controversial and thought it would be best to quote these directly to show that it was not my words being used, for example the use of the racially charged term "racial purity" is regularly used, even though such terminology has been condemned now going back to the 1990's (as opposed to the phrase genetic purity). Other phrases used by Amm beekeepers seeking to promote Conservation Areas would be 'foreign blood' 'racial profiling' 'half-breeds', etc. you get the idea.Bibby (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You have said "the Cornish bees website does not make the claims the reference implies, nor does the cbibbg reference following it in the sentence evidence that they are "claiming it is a separate subspecies", they say the mating patterns may hint it is, which is a pretty significant difference" you are referring to this portion of the article cited "(the research) also implies that our strain of A.m.m. is sufficiently distinct that the queens preferentially mate with same-strain drones, even hinting at being a separate sub-species" these are two different things that are being referred to which I think you have joined together.

1. They claim the research implies (it doesn't) their (strain of) Amm queens only mate with their own (strain of) Drones,

2. And they ALSO claim that the research hints at their Amm's "being a separate sub-specie" (they're claiming they have a sub-specie of a sub-specie... I know, you don't need to explain to me that one cannot have that! By the way, have you figured out that this research is unpublished... going on for some years... now you are starting to see why I like to "quote")

From reading what you have written, I think you think that the Cornish Beekeepers are stating that because their Amm's only mate with each other then this means that they may be a separate sub-specie, from reading their other publications and what they have written online (forums) I believe my summary is more accurate to what is being meant. (Just for extra info. Amm virgins appear not to mate with non-Amm Drones, it has nothing to do with the Strain of Amm, most of us that keep Amm's have observed this as well - I am referring to research done in 2013 Poland and 2020 Ireland).Bibby (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Also you have replaced the sentence "With one group even starting a "project to develop their own native breed of bee" with "Groups, such as the one in Pembrokeshire, are working to develop their own improved variants from local, native stock", the cited source states "Beekeepers in Pembrokeshire are approaching the final stage of a project to develop their own native breed of bee" I decided not to mention the Beekeeping Association just in case the individual wasn't officially speaking on their behalf, and if you read what I have summarized based on the article I think it may be more accurate? If you want to use the words "variants" and "native" you're going to have to give Sources for those claims, namely that they are working with "variants" (there's no research to support this) and they are using "native" Apis mellifera (there's no research to support this either, this week I've been in communication with researchers which will show this to be a false assumption on their part)Bibby (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally if you find that a link for a source is no longer valid, it might be better to try and fix it, instead of changing the sentence that relies on it, I'll try and hunt down the broken link you referred to which is, Black, Bob. "Native 'British Bees' could hold key to honeybee survival". blacks cornish bees. Retrieved 10 November 2018.Bibby (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hedge89, in your recent edit, you have written (I have highlighted in bold the parts which this statement revolves around),

"Organisations in Cornwall are attempting to establish whether the A. m. mellifera in their local geographic region are a distinct variety, some even suggesting it may be a separate subspecies. However, genetic analysis does not support Cornish A. m. mellifera as distinct from other populations of the subspecies. "

- the previous statement which you have replaced stated (again I have highlighted in bold the parts which this statement revolves around, the deadlink cited has been fixed),

"Other organizations are attempting to establish that the A. m. mellifera in their local geographic region are a distinct "variety", some even claiming it is a separate subspecies of the A. m. mellifera subspecies, but to date there is no published research to support this,"

As you can see there are subtle but important differences in the two versions:

1. You have removed the Quote Marks for the word "variety", this now suggests that Wiki is accepting that there are varieties of Apis mellifera, you need a source for that. By using the Quote Marks it is clear that a quotation of the source is occurring and wiki is not expressing an opinion either way. Possibly if the author is familar with genetics enough they are meaning an eco-type or geno-type... then why not use those precise words?

2. You have chosen to use the word "suggesting" instead of "claim", the latter is more precise and closer to a statement of fact in the opinion of the speaker, if you read the source I believe this is closer to what is being expressed.

3. You have chosen to condense the phrase "separate subspecies of the A. m. mellifera subspecies" to just "separate subspecies", the former is a more accurate expression of opinion of the source, I also feel it is important to place the ascertain of the existence of a new honey bee subspecie in context. It shows that the author of the source is not as familiar with taxonomy as one should be if discussing such subjects, but at the same time does not insult anyone.

4. This one is difficult: You have said "genetic analysis does not support Cornish A. m. mellifera as distinct from other populations of the subspecies" while the previous version stated "a separate subspecies of the A. m. mellifera subspecies, but to date there is no published research to support this". The research cited includes the sentence "the Cornish population showing some distinction from the other A. m. mellifera populations", from reading other genetic papers on honey bee populations isolated over several decades and in a geographically restricted area, "some distinction" is to be expected, but if you read the context, the Cornish beekeepers are making the ascertain that this translates to a separate subspecies. Your statement is saying 'no distinction', the research says 'some distinction', the beekeepers are saying 'new subspecie' -this claim is made on other web sites, research is referred to but when I have asked for copies I am told it isn't published yet... therefore you can see why I chose the phrase "unpublished", I'm trying to walk a tightrope and express the views of the beekeepers wanting Conservation Areas, but yet I am trying to accurately present the Science behind the research which they are (unintentionally I believe) misrepresenting.

5. Finally I feel uncomfortable with attributing these statements to individual localities, these views are not unique to some Beekeepers in Cornwall, they are representative of many beekeepers in rural isolated regions of the British Isles, therefore I thought it better to not give names and allow the statements to stand as expression of beliefs of those seeking to create Conservation Areas, as it helps the reader of this Wiki page to understand the reasoning from the viewpoint of the beekeepers.

If you could please get back to me on the above points as soon as you can; as you can see it's going to take us a long time to go through the paragraph that you have started to overhaul. It's a very complicated and emotional subject within beekeeping, how would you like to be told what you can keep, etc. so I've had to chose each individual word carefully.Bibby (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm going to push on with amending this opening paragraph to the "Promotion and conservation areas" Section. But before I revert it back but taking into consideration your feedback, I want to address a couple of points you raised.

1. You stated " "A. m. mellifera populations were genetically pure" references a paper which does not show that" (italics is you quoting from the previous version you've replaced), I'm guessing that you are quoting / paraphrasing from the abstract and haven't registered to read the original article, and therefore haven't number crunched the stats etc. but to quote from what you have read "analysis ... indicated that gene-flow had hardly occurred in some populations, whereas almost 10% introgression was observed in other populations", ... "almost 10%" means less than 10%, you only need 90% plus for a sub-specie to be defined as pure, in fact the DNA analysis only calculates the probability of 90+! you actually quoted this at the end of your paragraph, so I'm guessing that you didn't realise that within beekeeping 90%+ is considered pure. But you have reminded me of 2013 Polish and 2020 Irish (unpublished, but in the public domain) research which I should reference here, namely that A.m.mellifera virgin queens virtually do not mate with NON-A.m.mellifera Drones, meaning that they are not under threat in that sense! They are only under threat if beekeepers choose to stop keeping them.

2. You have stated "this is not Victorian pseudoscience regarding human races", I'm sorry but whenever an individual chooses to use the racially charged word "race" in the context of "racial purity" whenever for the past 30+ years the rest of the beekeeping and scientific community have avoided that phraseology for obvious reasons, then I am sorry we are entering into a world of pseudoscience. But you have reminded me that I need to add a Sub-section explaining the unique terminology found within this niche of beekeeping, in which racially charged words are openly used, Eg: in a recent Conference held on this topic one of the lectures was How to Racially Profile your Bees, and also a lecture on Foreign Blood, the former is a modern emotive concept / phrase while the latter is found in 1930's literature! Bibby (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your extensive reply and thought "I'll read through all that later" and then completely failed to do so, sorry about that! I was kinda wrapped up in thesis writing at the time and then forgot about it.

First pass though, fair points about the Cornish beekeeping stuff, as you say, it's unpublished research and that is a thing. I've slightly forgotten a bunch of this in the thirteen months it's taken me to get back to you so I'll have to dig into it all again though.

I think a part of any disagreement we've had though in the use of quote marks is a difference in the reading and use of them. I'll admit to a tendency to interpret their use dropped into text as a sort of tone marker implying disagreement or dismissal. E.g. on "variety", with the lack of any directly referenced organisations, it comes across to me as, well, sarcastic almost? As if you were speaking and did 90s sitcom air-quotes around the word. But I can see how it was meant in context now.

I'm going to have to reread the page as it is in its current form as I see you've continued to put a lot of work into it, and it's had significant changes. But as a final point, I would like to make it clear that I did read the paper you brought up specifically, including going into the numbers. Some of the points you make though regarding "90% pure cutoffs" may be bee specific I guess; I'm a plant population geneticist, it's possible we have different understandings of this matter. Anyway, once again, sorry for just dropping this for a year. Hedge89 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hedge,

thanks for the feedback. Over the past year or two I've become even more conscious of the fact that beekeeping in the UK (and it appears in Ireland) is dominated by hobbyists, very well meaning and knowledgable,.. but whenever you consider this fact, one can start to understand why some of the claims are being made; such as - recently a beekeeper on an online forum proudly proclaimed his Amm's were 100% pure, other members on the forum (which appeared to know a bit about DNA testing, etc.) tried to explain to him that this was not possible (by the present methods of extraction of the DNA and present methods of attributing subspecies status) he was very offended and fought his corner quite strongly, from memory I think someone mention the Dunning–Kruger effect! (remember if you're from north of the Sahara you're not even 100% human - Homo sapien sapien!!, the beekeeper was wanting his bees to be an even higher purity of their subspecies than he was of his!!!) Bibby (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. To be fair, anything particularly focused on potentially less-productive landrace strains or subspecies is likely to be dominated by hobbyists rather than big professional operations; as a comparison, major egg producers are using utility crosses and maybe production strain Leghorn chickens, not things off the RBST watchlist. A. m. m. is presumably (?) going to be linked more to small time beekeepers than major apiaries, particularly when it comes to people with a bee in their bonnet about maintaining the pure strain.

Reading further into the current version of the article, I would like to ask about point (3) on the 2012 story about bees from a church. I can't seem to find the original wording referenced but have to ask about the claim that it implied a separate subspecies. Local adaptation is very specifically something I've studied in depth and the idea that British populations of Amm may be better adapted to Britain's climate (which is notably challenging seasonally for invertebrates, relative to other European countries on the same latitude) while still falling clearly within the larger clade of European Amm isn't contradictory nor does it on its own imply separate subspecies status. Frankly it's something I'd expect to see, climate being a major driver of local adaptation, often due to relatively minor genetic changes. There are levels below subspecies (populations, subpopulations, metapopulations etc.) that are not considered distinct enough to merit elevation to subspecies, or may be difficult to separate out using whatever particular marker system has been chosen for a particular analysis, but are associated with different climatic tolerances.

Perhaps the unabridged quote is clearer but what I can read on the page appears to make no claim of separate subspecies status, merely the claim the British populations of Amm have (entirely expected and plausible) climatic adaptation to where they're found. Hedge89 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying that you would expect that after only 100 years of being in Britain you wold expect to see "climatic adaption" that could be verifiable? In that case can you give a link to that source? Bibby (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, you might actually see some fixation of climatically adaptive variation after 100 years, depends on a lot of factors though (available standing variation in the founding population, strength of selection pressure etc.) - climatic adaptation is a serious driver of evolutionary change even at remarkably short time scales. But no, I'm not talking about over 100 years, I'm talking about much longer term than that. Hedge89 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The Amm were re-imported into the British Isles after the IoWD, that's about 100 years. All fist hand accounts that I've been able to find, state that all the local A. m. mellifera bees died (the lowest death rate I found was 99% in Wales - the surviving colony may have been A. m. ligustica), daughters of A. m. ligustica (mated with local A. m. mellifera) died two years later (the A. m. mellifera from Ireland, under similar experiments, died within the same year of breeding). The claims that not all the local A. m. mellifera died from the IoWD (lowest death rate cited is 90%) came some decades after the end of the IoWD! Bibby (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's the unabridged quote from the source, "The British Black bee is different from other bees as they developed in the UK after the last ice age. The only surviving bees are predominantly black, with a hint of yellow, but much darker than the common bee seen across the UK. They are ideally suited the British climate - particularly that in the North of England - and more so than the European Black bee." Just for clarity the "European Black bee" is a Common name for the Apis mellifera mellifera - also a claim is being made by the author that the bees he's referring to are descendants from bees that came over to Britain just after the last Ice Age, something which has now been shown to be impossible based on recent DNA research findings; but we're digressing. Bibby (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! But I don't think you're digressing there, as far as I could see from browsing the recent literature, the idea that British Amm populations are/were naturally occurring (i.e. made their own way over before the Dogger landbridge closed), and subsequently were largely isolated from mainland Amm lineages for thousands of years appears to be the current scientific consensus. What source refutes the idea that that isn't true? Beyond that, the idea that the native population all died out due to IWD has largely been disregarded in the last few decades due to things like genetic studies seemingly confirming surviving native populations in Ireland (see below); or the fact that the whole idea is based on Amm's particular susceptibility to tracheal mites, which weren't actually the cause of IWD, such as it was (https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/8w51y/ - Bailey, 1964).

Either way, no part of that extended quote implies a separate subspecies, merely a separate population of Amm, which they were/are. I mean, Irish populations of Amm contain a number of mtDNA haplotypes that are absent from continental lineages sampled so far (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2018.1433949), some of which at least are likely not just representative of undersampling of mainland European populations but represent unique lineages to the island. There isn't so much popgen research on British populations from the last 5 years that I can find but it's like, the evidence indicates they've been here at least 3-4,000 years (http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/43702/1/Carreck,_2008.pdf); and while it's not evidence, I would say, based on my pretty extensive knowledge of post-glacial British climate, biogeography and flora that it would be far more surprising if Amm hadn't colonised Britain before the inundation of Doggerland. Of course, wikipedia doesn't run on whatever we reckon but I can't say I've seen any good evidence against their existing as a natural part of our fauna. There's also some linguistic evidence in favour of honeybees predating Celtic people's arrivals in Britain, probably >3,000 years ago. The long and short of that is that, to my mind, the burden of proof rests rather more heavily on claims of "honeybees were brought to Britain by humans" (seemingly completely lacking) than on "honeybees are native". Hedge89 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You cite Baileys 1964 article, I don't understand, are you now saying that Apis mellifera do not adapt to their environment? While previously saying that they do? Baileys writings / studies on the IoWD are based on the assumption that the A. m. mellifera are ALL the same (meaning those imported had the exact same disease response / resistance as those already in Britain): To help you understand this, go and read about the accounts of the arrival of varroa destructor in Algeria, beekeepers were saying they were losing 90% of their hives whenever varroa arrived into their apiaries (British beekeepers said 100% for the IoWD), but now the bees in Algeria are effectively varroa resistant - therefore coming along some decades after the arrival of varroa and finding the bees in Algeria now varroa resistant and declaring that the bees were resistant all along and the 90% death rate cited was grossly overstated, would not be an accurate assessment? You see what I am trying to explain.

In relation to the Irish study conducted in 2017 (published in 2018) you are essentially referring to the Beara bee, I'll let you read up on that; basically 99% of the A. m. mellifera tested were substantially similar to the continental A. m. mellifera. There was a study published in (I think) 2020, that showed that the 30% unique alleles observed in the Irish A. m. mellifera was at the lowest end of what one would expect after a 100 year isolation, in other words, one would have expected them to have had a higher unique allelic mutation rate if they had incorporated DNA from a previous existing population isolated from other A. m. mellifera for 1500 odd years (the Beara bees had this extremely high mutation rate, which is what would have been expected to be observed.. about one percent of the samples - info. on the Beara bees was made known by the author three years later, titled the Beara Bee Case Study, research is continuing).

You've referenced a 2008 article with so many mistakes in it (albeit with hindsight, although one could suspect as much at the time of publication) that I'm not going to go through it line by line. In short you said "..but I can't say I've seen any good evidence against their existing as a natural part of our fauna.." err, the Very FIRST Source (number 3) cited in the Wiki Page that we are discussing...! (I'll let you go back to the page and click on it) The A. m. melifera come (most likely) from central Asia, or the western edge of it, only migrating into Europe after the last ice age, bearing in mind recent research has shown that the average distance of a swarm flies is less than 400m, upwards to 800m, (and not taking into consideration overwintering deaths, failed swarms, failed virgin matings, etc.) there is no way the A. m. mellifera could have reached Doggerland in time!

I'm going to stop there, as you would not have written that sentence if you had read that first source. In meantime, I have noticed a couple of mistakes in citations in the page, which I really should fix. Thank you as re-checking the pages sources drew my attention to them. Bibby (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

1 - Yeah I get what you're saying about selective sweeps, I was merely pointing out that a number of the very specific claims about IWD were based on faulty reasoning. Also, look I know it's research from decades later, but it's not bad research. Plus, deaths under apiary conditions != feral colony deaths (which can be greater or lesser depending on various factors ofc.). I'm not discounting the idea that all native Amm strains went extinct, just that I'm not 100% convinced by what appears to be anecdotal claims from beekeepers who thought "too much pollen" was a thing. Nothing to do with whether Amm strains might adapt to IWD, rather the fact that it wasn't necessarily the epidemic that it was presented as at the time. Also, different populations from the same larger metapopulation or subspecies may have comparable or identical allele frequencies for some loci but divergent ones for different loci, these are not contradictory statements. And while disease resistance can be an aspect of environmental adaptation, we were talking about climatic adaptation afore.

2 - I'll have a look at the levels of expected variation on that, try and find the followups. Thanks for the pointers on that.

3 - If you mean Tihelka et al. 2020, I read it in full the other day actually, very interesting paper, but I don't think it says what you think it says there. You may want to revisit the conclusions section of that paper, but at no point does it posit or support a centre of origin for Amm as Central Asia. In fact, if anything the conclusions of this paper drag the supposed centre of origin for Amm further east from previous works.

"The dispersal of M lineage honey bees into Europe and Asia is hard to explain, since the position of the M lineage was recovered as close to A lineage bees in CAT-GTR + G analyses, but without strong support. Chen et al. suggested that A. m. mellifera and A. m. sinisxinyuan are close to O and C lineage bees based on a NJ analysis. This result would imply that the origin of the M lineage lies in Asia Minor or the Near East. Clearly, the origin and position of the M linage warrants further study."

It's worth noting that the two subspecies that are consistently recovered by them as constituting the M lineage represent the most Eastern A. mellifera subspecies discovered so far and the most Northern subspecies. The bio-geographic patterns there indicate either some mad vicariance, incomplete lineage sorting doing something very funny to their phyllogenetic arrangement (though, it does look good) or potentially deeper splits in time, glacial refugia and later wholesale replacement of populations between the two M lineage subspecies. Anyway, when you take into account the fact their refugial point of origin was possibly around Turkey then it's wholly plausible that they could have, using your numbers of swarm dispersal distances (though, species range expansion rates can far outperform what you might expect from averages) and a fairly conservative estimate of allowable dispersal time based on when the Holocene melting really got going rather than simply when it started. Hedge89 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you are conflating the "the origin of the M lineage" with the refugium of the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera during the last ice age; the map in the source helps makes this distinction clearer. You've made me realize that an additional source may be needed. Bibby (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Subspecies

The treatment of subspecies should be changed. If this bee is subspecies mellifera, it cannot have subspecies of its own. If the subspecies mentioned in the text are indeed closely related, then I suggest that the European dark bee is treated as a subspecies group. Dogo (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have re-arranged the wording to try and make sense and corrected it as per your comment.Bibby (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I am seriously trying to locate any reference to the following anywhere, mellifera (brown bee), lehzeni (heathland bee), nigra (black bee), IF anyone has ANYTHING, please add it here! The ONLY thing I can find is the "mellifera (brown bee)" which is obviously the A. m. mellifera! I suspect that the others may be slight visual color variations within the same subspecie, but I can find no reference to either of them in the manner of this article. My feeling is that they therefore should be deleted, but I'll hold of for a while in the hope that someone has some new info. on this. Bibby (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the next sentence as well about the "Pomeranian brown...", etc. for the same reasons, I suspect that these 'names' are simply because the Amm happens to be in those locations, and nothing to do with genetics or even characteristics.Bibby (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions

1. It is not clear how a subspecies can have "three main races". This doesn't make much sense and it needs to be clarified. It is also not clear if each one of the "three main races" divides into Pomeranian brown, Alps black and black Scandinavian.

2. The first image in this article is misleading because instead of saying that the bee comes from Savoy, it seems to imply there is a variety of bees called "Savoy" bees which is not the case. The last two photos in this article do not show the European dark bee but only a generic "European honey bee" and a "honeybee". In this article there should only be photos of European dark bees.

ICE77 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to fix this, I've also mentioned it in the image section below.Bibby (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

Just posting here to document that User:Apismell2015 is going ham inserting a massive amount of copy/pasted information (though from where, I cannot tell - it certainly appears to be a study). DawnDusk (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Character

Why is the "Character" section mainly talking about hybrids (with the European dark bee) and telling us what it is not like. Surely this section should be detailing the Chacteristics of this bee?!?!?!Is123Biblio (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Image

The image on this wiki page is called a "Savoie honeybee" but I have never heard of this type of bee, nor have I been able to find anything about it from google searches, except referring back to wiki. Also, I'm not sure, but it's abdomen seems a bit big, from that view point it looks like a drone? Maybe a better photo could be chosen and the reference to "Savoie" be deleted?Bibby (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Qualities

There is a Link cited , it is in German, but after going through it with Google Translater I cannot find any reference in it's pages to support the last Quality "possibly hardiness against Varroa" Bibby (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to search for a citation or reliable source, in fact any source, to try and back up this claim, but considering that the claim itself is strangely ambiguous, "possibly hardiness against Varroa" I think it is best to delete it until a source can be found to substantiate it.Bibby (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Significance

This section has so much wrong with it, I'm not sure where to start, I mean it even talks as if varroa mites were present in Europe at the end of WW2, when everyone knows that they didn't arrive for decades later! Please feel free to trim this down and try to get the glaring mistakes down to zero.Bibby (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence of the third paragraph has no citations, and I have, 1. been unable to find any for it and, 2. have found sources to contradict it, therefore I am going to delete it, if anyone can come up with reliable sources then please post here, and we can re-submit it.Bibby (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

External Links

This External Link "Waugh, Rob (11 July 2012). "Good to bee back: 'Extinct' British breed of honeybee found alive and well in church rafters after nearly 80 years". Daily Mail." has so many false statements that it detracts from this Wiki page, every beekeeper knows that the Spanish Flu had nothing to do with the Isle Of Wight Disease that wiped out the A. m. mellifera in the first half of the last century, and that's only the beginning: I'll give it some time, but unless someone can come up with a very good reason for keeping this newspaper article with very considerable inaccuracies I am inclined to delete it altogether.Bibby (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There's been no Talk feedback on this, but I'm hesitant to delete the Link, therefore I think it may be best to add it to the main article with a few lines to correct it's inaccuracies with the appropiate Sources, it'll take me a while to hunt them all down.Bibby (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, another member went ahead and deleted the Link when I was in the process of writing a sub-section about this online story that has circulated on the iinternet for some time now, but I've included as much info. as I felt was needed, although I could continue for another page on the inaccuracies of the story, but I think it's settled now.Bibby (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"...destroyed by order of the Nazis..."

This claim has been bugging me, I've heard it quite a lot, but no one can give me any more information except for the sentence here in the wiki article, "The breeding stocks in Central Europe were nearly destroyed by order of the Nazis, who considered the honey yields not up to modern standards and wanted to "improve" the bee stocks kept in areas under their control[citation needed].", I really have tried searching for a source for this. I suspect it must be somewhere, maybe in German?? But even after using GoogleTranslate, and quite a few hours, the best I can get is that after the war Germany decided to re-stock with A. m. carnica, coupled with the fact that there appears to have been heavy losses incurred by beekeepers during WW2 (not surprising) may have been the seed for this online / wiki myth. So without a Source I think we unfortunately need to delete this sentence, I would love it to be true as I love WW2 history and it's so interesting, I mean you can't help but to like a little bee that the Nazi's hated, right? But sadly we can't keep it, hopefully someone will read this in the future and know a Source so we can add it to this wiki article. Bibby (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

After a LOT of work and searching, in German mainly, I should point out! I believe I have eventually hunted down the source of this online rumor that the Nazi's tried to kill of the A.m.mellifera, in short they didn't, it appears to be a case of Chinese whispers, in that the Nazi's actually tried to protect the A.m.mellifera but after a Nosema epidemic they were mostly wiped out, and the beekeepers made the decision to repopulate their hives with the available A.m.carnica bees from Austria, thus replacing, not eradicating them! Bibby (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)