Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | |
| I had thought all the worker bees were female, and all the male "drones" stayed in the hives. The Wikipedia says that isn't true for all species. [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 07:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | | I had thought all the worker bees were female, and all the male "drones" stayed in the hives. The Wikipedia says that isn't true for all species. [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 07:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
− | :Even among eusocial bees, the drones leave the hive/nest to mate. Among honeybees, they even forage.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | Eusociality in bees is actually quite rare. Only the honey bee and a few other species are social, the rest are solitary: one nest per female and males that fly around without nesting and are often quite active. It's the common case, social species are the exception.
| |
− |
| |
− | Social: 7 species of honeybee, about 500 species of stingless bees and about 200 species of bumblebee, compared to a good twenty thousand bee species total. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.156|141.101.104.156]] 10:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| | | |
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ophrys_apifera&oldid=571187022#Reproduction Wikipedia on the reproduction of Ophrys apifera]: | | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ophrys_apifera&oldid=571187022#Reproduction Wikipedia on the reproduction of Ophrys apifera]: |
Line 27: |
Line 22: |
| | | |
| This is the most touching cartoon he's ever done. [[Special:Contributions/72.10.216.205|72.10.216.205]] 02:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | | This is the most touching cartoon he's ever done. [[Special:Contributions/72.10.216.205|72.10.216.205]] 02:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
− | I have to agree with you there. [[Special:Contributions/115.70.105.180|115.70.105.180]] 07:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
− | : Well, right up there with [[695: Spirit]], anyway. [[Special:Contributions/130.225.98.201|130.225.98.201]] 08:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
− | ::Too bad it isn't true. The bee is quite common.{{unsigned ip|96.251.85.48}}
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− | This is almost straight from the movie [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268126/ Adaptation (2002)] {{unsigned ip|68.188.12.97}}
| |
− |
| |
− | I noticed that there are a number of sub-species of Ophrys apifera. Is it possible that they are regionally adapted to variations among the Eucera population? Randall has gone to a lot of trouble to depict the flower and to wax poetically upon the bee, and it seems somewhat odd if the whole point of the comic, that the bee is 'extinct', is a fallacy. Is Randall just making use of his poetic license here? Or does the Ophrys apifera that he depicts relate to an actually extinct sub-species of Eucera? I would love to know, but without going to the trouble of finding out for myself. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 02:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :The italian language edition of Wikipedia also mentions that Ophrys apifera relied on a now-extinct bee. Source is given as {{w|The Blind Watchmaker}}, by Richard Dawkins. Maybe Dawkins used the example without knowing that there are still some bees which pollinate this orchid in some parts of the world. And maybe Randall was reading Dawkins. Does anyone have this book?
| |
− | :--[[User:Lou Crazy|Lou Crazy]] ([[User talk:Lou Crazy|talk]]) 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | I just read this, and... now I feel sad for those bees.
| |