Talk:Bumblebee/Archive 1

What sort of bumblebee is this?
Maybe this image could be used in this article somewhere. Lupin 17:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarification?
I'd like clarification on the following paragraph:

Bumblebees are beneficial to human beings because they can pollinate plant species that other pollinators cannot. For example, bumblebee colonies are often emplaced in greenhouse tomato production, because the frequency of buzzing that a bumblebee exhibits effectively pollinate tomatoes.

So what mechanism allows them to pollinate some plants that others cannot, and what does the frequency of their buzzing have to do with anything?

Airosche 15:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With tomatoes the anthers are joined together in a tube, and the pollen grains are produced inside the anthers, rather that the more common pattern of the grains produced on the outside. The pollen is released through pores, and it falls down through the tube to the outside. Wind can create enough motion to release some pollen, and fans have been used in greenhouses, but it's less efficient than other means. For many years electric vibrators (one trade name "Electric Bee") were used, but that's expensive in labor and some stems get broken. A bumblebee is ideal. A bumblebee is a heavy bee, so its weight tilts the blossom downward, positioning the tube opening at the bottom. This alone would be a significant help in pollen release. The bumblebee then hangs on tightly and vibrates its wing muscles, causing the whole flower to shake. The bee's fuzzy abdomen (belly) is bumping against the pistil and the opening of the tube, so that some pollen grains are adhering to the bee and some being knocked back onto the pistil. The frequency of vibration has to do with the natural resonant frequency of the flower, which can amplfy the effect. The tomato originated in South America, and its pollinator was probably a fairly large halictid bee that could sonicate. However, when the plant was carried around the world by early expolorers, they did not carry the pollinator with it. Probably there was only a limited amount of self fertility in the original tomato, however with only wind to do the job in many cases, any tomato that was capable of self pollenization would tend to reproduce much better and the self fertile trait increased with breeding. Self fertility is a biogical defect in the wild, but is sometimes bred into plants by humans to better suit our purposes - in this case scarcity of pollinators. It take much less input to make fruit with self fertile blossoms.

That said, the statement is somewhat misleading in that it implies that bumblebees are the only pollinators. In actuality many bees can do the job, it's just that bumblebees are very efficient. Honeybees are reluctant to visit tomato blossoms because there is little or no nectar and the pollen is scant, unless it's sonicated, which honeybees rarely do. But honeybees do sometimes work the blossoms and they can pollinate them as well.

Another principle that is poorly understood by many people is that the number of fertilized seeds is one determinant of the size of the fruit, along with fertility, water, temperature, etc. Lack of fertilized seeds can be a limiting factor, causing a lot of small fruit. In other words the more pollen grains that are delivered to the pistils, the more incipient seeds will be fertilized and the more flesh of the fruit will be produced.

One of the mythologies among folks involved with tomatoes is that tomatoes self pollinate. They do not do this very well, or greenhouse tomatoes would not need aid. The tomatoes need an outside agent that creates motion, such as wind, a human with a vibrator, or a bee. So it is not truly self pollinating, only self pollenizing.

Does this help? Pollinator 17:08, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * What an answer - I'm impressed. -- Solipsist 19:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fantastic! I'm sorry I didn't get around to reading that until just now, completely forgot I had asked the question.  Airosche 22:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

A question about observed bumblebee behavior
For several consecutive spring seasons, I have noticed bumblebees (at least that is what they appear to be) hovering above rhododendron plants on my property. I have not seen them alight on the plants, which rarely produce flowers. Whether blooms are present or not, the bumblebees are present every spring for several weeks or more. They hover from about six inches to several feet above the plant tops. They appear to intercept other insects visiting the rhododendrons. They do so in mid-air with sudden great speed and accuracy, then return to hover until they target another insect. I have not been able to determine the purpose of this behavior. At first I thought it was predation, but I don't believe the adults feed at this stage of life. I can't tell what happens to the intercepted insect either. Can someone explain?


 * Look for a white spot on the "forehead" of the bee. I believe you are observing the male carpenter bee Xylocopa virginica rather than a Bombus (bumblebee) species. If you see that white spot, you are observing the territorial pattern of the carpenter bee. He will attempt to drive off other male carpenter bees, and will attempt to mate with just about anything else in that size range that flies. He is totally harmless, having no ability to sting. They are kind of fun to have around. You can play with them by tossing pebbles. Or watch them try to mate with a wren. Hilarious! And the females, if not the males, are very important pollinators. Unfortunately the cosmetic damage they do in nesting in wood and the paranoia that many people have about bees hovering about causes lots of calls to exterminators. Their value is such that they should be protected by law.
 * Another reason I think carpenter bee, is that you only see them in the spring, whereas bumblebees are relatively rare in the spring (only a few queens around) and become common by mid to late summer when the colonies become populous.Pollinator 21:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no subfamily Bombinae
In case anyone else decides on switching back to a 35-year old classification scheme; please do not. Examine Wikispecies to see the presently accepted classification of Apidae.Dyanega 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How to treat a Bumble Bee Sting?
I disturbed a bumble bee nest while doing landscaping. I noticed that they were not very aggressive and continued with my work until one of them decided to attack me. Strangely, this bee was attacking my face.I kept waving my arms to get rid of it, but it did not give up until it stung me on my cheek! I applied "After Bite" a product found in stores and it seems to be under control. The bite is very itchy and I have been wondering whether it has any other implications. Most of the material I am finding about the Bumble Bees do not say anything about what to do if stung by one! Perhaps because they are mostly docile!

Appreciate any info about effects of a sting! Thanks!


 * Bumblebees are totally docile when foraging among the flowers, and will not sting unless one grabs them, or runs barefoot through the grass, which is more of a reflex than an attack. At the nest site, some species of bumblebees can be defensive to protect their home. Waving a hand is the worst possible thing to do, because a moving object is always perceived as a threat. The best approach is to quickly back away from the defended territory. Cover your face mostly with your hands if you wish, as a sting on the face is always worse than a sting on the hands. But don't provoke them by swatting or waving. I know that's hard to do, but it's the best in the long run... As noted below, ice is a good thing. Antihistimines may help control swelling, or buy time in the relatively rare cases of a systemic allergic reaction. Pollinator 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * omg and my friends laugh at me when i run away from them!

ToTreat a Sting: With bumblebee stings, the insects do not lose their stingers when they attack and can sting repeatedly. Treatment involves washing the site of the sting with soap and water and use of an antiseptic to prevent infection. To reduce swelling and prevent venom from spreading, wrap ice in a cloth and quickly apply it to the sting. Leave in place for 20 to 30 minutes. Source: Komotv.com URL: http://ww3.komotv.com/global/story.asp?s=1230383 Dated: 21 July 06

More Observed behaviour of the bumblebee
A hot summer's day with lawn in brown patches. Bumblebee flying over it a low level backwards and forwards like a helicopter searching for a body. Eventually lands and burrows down to the roots of the grass, and stays there most of the day. Leaves without any activity being obvious. Next day a bumblebee repeats process, but settles in a new spot. Are they just finding a cool spot? or what? We have had a bumblebee nest somewhere in the garden for some years. BigSteve474 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigSteve474 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bumblebee living quarters
I've been wondering for quite a while, does the bumblebees live like wasps, not exactly sure wich race but they are black/yellow striped? This is bugging the hell outa' me :). It does say something about wax houses in the article but a picture or a carefull explanation would be very welcome. --DerMeister 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

-They are bees, not wasps, you should look for information about other bees, if you want to find out more. --anonymos 18:47, 07.07.2010 (CET/MEZ)

Se qualche italiano passa...
questo insetto si chiama Bombo 83.190.21.85 08:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations?
First edit, but i think all the citation needed stuff in the first paragraph is pretty useless; half of it doesn't really need citing, and the other half is just common knowledge 80.0.37.138 08:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the citations can be taken from http://hercules.users.netlink.co.uk/Bee.html where the research was taken from " The Humble Bee " by F.W.L.Sladen, reprinted by the Logaston Press in 1989. ISBN 0 9510242 3 X Father Shandor 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it's important to cite sources, but the first paragraph especially seems a bit over the top in cite-needed tags. I've taken most of them out. --Arvedui 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Global Distribution
The following is inaccurate: "Bumblebees are typically found in higher latitudes that range from warm to cold climates where other bees might not be found.". In fact, the two genera are globally ubiquitous and not confined to any one specific area. While it is partially true that bumblebees are better able to operate in colder termperatures than some other species of bee due to their advanced thermoregulatory ability, it is not true that bumblebees are able to exist in places that "other bees might not be found". As an example, this species of megachilid (a solitary bee, not a bumblebee) exists in the Yukon territory of Canada, in the Arctic circle. 74.99.73.149 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it is accurate. There are places in the Arctic where the ONLY bee species are Bombus. Also, there are NOT two genera; that is a 25-year old classification, badly outdated. Dyanega 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reference for a bumblebee that occurs in an area completely devoid of all other bees. DjangoSan 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bombus polaris occurs on Ellesmere Island, accompanied by its parasite, B. arcticus, and no other bees. I do not have a citation, but it is verifiable, if one examines published distribution maps.
 * Nevertheless, a secondary source citation is needed for this to be in a Wikipedia article. Such a citation would have to explicitly say something like "The only bees that occur on Ellesmere Island are bumblebees."On that note, most of the things in this article lack citation. Maybe we should work on that? DjangoSan 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement I chiefly disagree with is that they are TYPICALLY found in higher latitudes. This is misleading in that they CAN be found in places that others cannot, but there is nothing "typical" about it. The word TYPICAL has a lot of ecological weight and should not be used lightly. If bumblebees were "typical" anywhere, it would be the Ecuador region in Central America or the Kashmir region in Asia, depending on exactly how you quantify "typical". I know this is semantically picky, but I believe using the word typical is simply inaccurate. DjangoSan 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion about how you are reading the statement, and I suppose someone needs to add a semicolon or hyphen. The clause is "Bumblebees are typically found in higher latitudes" - the rest of the sentence is not actually connected to that clause.
 * Point taken, I didn't read that correctly.DjangoSan 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Onto the division of Bombus and Psithyrus: I assume when you say the division is "badly outdated" you are referring to the three Paul Williams papers from the 80's - early 90's and possibly Koulianos & Schmid-Hempel 2000. I think you said you were referencing Bees of the World (are those Michener's references?). Anyway, I agree that according to most taxonomists Psythirus has been classified as a sub-genus after those data were presented. Thus, bumblebees are represented by a single genus: Bombus. That said, I think from a functional viewpoint the division of these groups (social vs. cleptoparasitic) should still be clearly differentiated early in this article as the two have extremely different modes of life. DjangoSan 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look, I did not change that - I gave cuckoo bumblebees (it's spelled "Psithyrus", incidentally) their own section, to help highlight their unusual biology. Dyanega 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent! DjangoSan 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW
How can most information in this article be in the intro? WOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.100.79 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I live in the Pacific Northwest Canada and have observered for years that bumblbees here are traveling at least 20 miles over water to forage... when I'm out in my boat a mile or so from shore (Mayne Island in British Columbia)fishing I've observed them passing my boat... they will sometimes do a few circles around my boat before heading off to land (Point Roberts)almost 20 miles away ...I've also seen them coming from there they are definetly going the long distance as I've watched them till they dissapear in the distance headed in an almost straight line

Larry McInerney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.23.27 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rating
I don't think this is quite A-class material. An A-class article should be able to stand up to an FA nomination and come close to passing at least. A few of the problems I notice glancing over this is that the lead section seems to describe morphology rather than summarize the article - a physical description of the insect's appearance should have its own section with the lead summarizing the article as a whole. The first 3 references are also just numbers - a reference should at least have a title. There is also a trivia section, a big no-no. It also had no Commons cat link, which every article should have if one exists or can be created. Furthermore, a picture of a nest would round out the images nicely, assuming one exists somewhere.

I've done a bit of work on it and added a to do list, but there are still concerns that will need to be addressed.

I'm not sure when the article was bumped up to A, but A is a very high rating, and the article should be almost perfect to reach such status. I'd suggest a GA nomination or peer review before giving it an A, unless it's appears absolutely flawless. Richard001 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of some confusion in the initial stages, WP:ARTH has ended up treating A as below GA (probably because it makes more sense to go FA, GA, A, B, C than to put extra divisions between GA and FA). It's unfortunate, but I don't think changing single articles helps much in that regard. --Stemonitis 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A question
After the queen bee wraps up her eggs, does she fly off and die or hang around until after her eggs "hatch"? Or neither? Or both? --JJ


 * The queen begins the colony alone in the spring, but the other tasks of colony management are taken over by workers as soon as they are present. The queen remains with the colony, laying more eggs, until late in the season, when a group of young queens are raised. Then the old queen dies with the colony. The young queens find suitable hiding places to spend winter; if they survive, they will start new colonies in the spring. Pollinator 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside: Workers of the first brood (usually the first 1-3 workers that emerge) are usually very small due to the limited resources provided by the queen. Their size prevents them from making any sort of substantial foraging trips (small body = small flight range, small honey crop, small corbiculae) and they will usually just hang out in the hive and take care of larvae. The queen will continue to forage during this period, although her foraging will cease after larger workers begin to emerge. That said, even after the colony has many workers, the queen does not become an "egg-laying machine" and will continue to care for larvae and do maintenence/building tasks in the colony. Corbiculad 10:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rearranging
I've done some rearranging and added some sections. I hope its to everyone's satisfaction! Corbiculad 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Selected Species Section
It might make more sense if this section was limited only to those species that have their own Wikipedia page (i.e. no "red links"). Seeing as there is already a page listing all the Bombus species, isn't it redundant to have a (very randomly selected) species list on the Bombus page? 99.232.9.225 04:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points: (1) the species list is a very recent addition, and (2) the species page is not wikified. If someone wants to wikify it, then I'd agree that removing the redlinked species from this article would be a good move. Dyanega 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Corbiculad 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Content of Anatomy Section
The anatomy section contains a lot of what I would consider extraneous/overly general information. It is less of an anatomy section, and more of a random assortment of biological facts about the bumble bee. Shouldn't this section focus on (and only on) the unique gross anatomy of the bumble bee? Just a thought. 128.100.72.149 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

reviving exhausted bumblebees
Occasionally you come across an exhausted bumblebee which has run out of energy, usually in early Spring. You can revive and refuel it by mixing a little honey with warm water in a saucer and placing the bee in the mix. Usually the bee will start lapping up the honey mix and in a short time it will be strong enough to fly away. This is a great way to observe a bumblebee feeding at close quarters. User:Gill Winter 21:19, 8 December 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyanega (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

VERY UNSATISFACTORY RESULT FROM EXTERNAL LINK
The penultimate link on the article page "Bumble Bees: Bombus Bimaculatus" appears to advocate the use of insecticides to eliminate or "control" a nest in an undesirable location. Is the extermination of a nest really necessary for the sake of having to make a (temporary) detour, until the nest dies naturally? These creatures are in serious decline as it is, without resorting to such drastic measures. Only this week I accidentally unearthed a nest whilst removing earth for a new garden fence. Luckily, the spade missed the queen and her eggs but the nest was totally exposed and I had three options: 1) Kill the lot of them (as advocated in the external link mentioned above) 2) Ignore them and carry on digging 3) Move the nest. Having only the previous week read a major (front page) article in The Independent (UK) about the serious decline of these insects, the first option was simply out of the question. The second option was neither possible - the fence had to be installed. I took my chances and opted for the third and moved the nest somewhere safe six meters away. I'd never done anything like this before, and it was not particularly easy. I can honestly say that in the whole course of the day that it took to prepare the new site (having modified a bird box and burried it), and night it took to move the old nest, I was not stung once by the bumblebees - it was the mosquitoes that that bit me to bits!! I learnt more about these remarkable bees in this short space of time than I have previously all my life, and it was certainly a very rewarding experience. So please, do not think that it's beyond your capabilities to do the same if given the similar circumstances. Killing a nest should never be an option. Father Shandor 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * bees should be killed, there are a menaice to humans. No one wants to get stung.....
 * Bees were here long before humans, and will almost certainly out live us. I think our anonymous 'friend' has a lack of perspective. Wasps and African X bees are bad tempers on wings, but largely Bees are not much of a risk to a human with more than a single figure IQ... Father Shandor 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, bees are nice and even kind of cute if you don't bother them. It's wasps that are the alien death-machines... ;-) --Arvedui 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No one wants to starve either; which is what will happen to us if the pollinator decline trend continues. Superficial thinking can hasten our species end. Bees are protected by law in some areas, and probably should have greater protection in most areas. To the first writer, thanks for caring. Pollinator 02:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i dont see a decrease in food...


 * I never had any problems with bumblebees here in Cologne, I guess all the species here are gentle. Wasps on the other hand...--DerMeister 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not what you would call an animal rights activist (quite the opposite really) but I grew up in an area with lots of active bees each summer. Only once was I stung by a bumblebee and that is because I stepped on it barefoot.  They're really mellow creatures.  Yellowjackets, on the other hand, were aggressive and we had to destroy hives with smoke a couple of times. Atamasama 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not of bumblebees. I realize people have respected that for about a year now, judging by the dates on posts, but this sort of thing must not continue. 76.116.150.180 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bumblebee sets flight record
I'll leave it to this article's regulars to decide if this tidbit of info should be included, but a study at Newcastle University just demonstrated that a bumblebee can fly 8 miles, including the ability to navigate back home. Web news site is Akradecki 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's early Spring in Chicago suburb and the small daffodils are blooming. I cut several and noticed a small (baby??) bumblebee in each cup. The cuttings were several hours old before my daughter noticed them. The bees did not move until I removed them with a pair of tweezers. Why were the bees seemingly hibernating in the cups?--76.224.3.255 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Odds are very good that they were not bumblebees, but one of the several hundred solitary bee species native to Illinois. It is very common for bees, especially males, to rest in flowers. Dyanega (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

feeding off leaves?
this morning I saw some bumblebees visiting a beech tree, and appearing to eat something from the undersides of several leaves. Waht were they doing? I took a couple of photos, hopefully if they're OK I'll put them in the article. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is either water droplets (bumble bees sometimes drink plain water), or honey-dew from an aphid.--99.239.146.172 (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Invasive species
Any thoughts on including a section on bumblebees as invasive species and the associated impact on native plants, animals and agriculture e.g. in New Zealand, Tasmania, Australia ? Or would it be better in the Bombus terrestris article ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better to keep it in the terrestris article, unless there are other invasive Bombus species. Dyanega (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Orange Bumblebees?
I only have a question regarding bumble bees. Has anyone ever seen a pure orange bumble bee? I live in California and one sort of approached me yesterday (11-07-08) and seemed to look me over before moving on so I got a really good look at it. It definitely had the usual characteristics of a bumble bee, specifically the fuzz over its entire body, but I have lived in California all my life (and here in the San Joaquin Valley for 32 years) and have never seen one like this. It was truly beautiful and I just wondered if it is a normal species or perhaps a new species that is developing.

I would appreciate any information you could provide me about this unusual bumble bee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.126.244 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not a bumblebee. That was a male of the "Valley carpenter bee", Xylocopa varipuncta. very common in California. Dyanega (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Link
Bumblebee flight observed in windtunel with smoke: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507194511.htm Plus in-depth on flight. Check it out, please add to article if good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.65.83 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote from flight/myth section
In the flight/myth section, the French sentence is probably misquoted, as it is not grammatically correct. A word is missing. It should read either: Tout d'abord poussé par ce qui se fait en aviation... or, at a pinch: Tout d'abord poussé par ce qui est fait en aviation... It should be corrected in accordance with the original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.254.93.8 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Humblebee>Bumblebee
To be honest, this sounds like a folk etymology. Is there a reference to support the idea that 'humblebee' was the original name?

According to the OED, "bumble-bee" comes from "bumble (meaning to buzz, as a fly)" + bee. This usage dates to 1530. Humble-bee was an alternate name, dating to 1450 but the origin has nothing to do with gentleness, it refers to the humming sound the bee makes.
 * According to Mr. Burns (scroll up a tiny bit), of course, it should be "Bumbled-bee"... --Arvedui 05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The German word for bumblebee is "Hummel", which I presume is somehow related to calling bumblebees "humblebees".
 * And in Dutch it's ‘hommel’, which is according to van Dale an onomatopoeia. Also, humblebee redirects here, but the article doesn't say why. Shinobu (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The English naturalist and author Richard Jefferies uses the term 'humble-bee' exclusively in his 1884 collection of essays The Life of the Fields. The term used for honey bees is 'hive bees'. I also suspect the etymology comes from German or Dutch, possibly even Anglo-Saxon. I think humblebee and bumblebee coexisted for centuries in different parts of the country, though humblebee has largely fallen out of use during the twentieth century. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of bumblebee not described here
I shot a macro of a bumblebee and it had some capsules near the head part of the bee. Does anyone have some idea what those could be? The image was taken in very early spring so I thought maybe those are the eggs that goes into the new nest. P7r7 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These aren't eggs, but pollen. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bugboy52.40, I do not think P7r7 is referring to the "golden" dust sprinkled all over the bumblebee's body (which you seem to talk about and which indeed looks like pollen), but rather to the bigger "bulges" protruding from its "neck".


 * Hypothesis: it could be parasites, such as mites, which sometimes infest bees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.254.93.8 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like mites to me... 65.246.63.68 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are phoretic mites! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

New cleanup tags do not require discussion but. ..
If you look at the new tags, they no longer require discussion. However, there are several issues I will address. First is the number of pictures and how they display. There are too many IMHO and either should be in a gallery or Wikicommons category. See the Foraging behavior section. Second, spelling. There are spellings that use British versus English spellings. From what perspective is this written? Next, this section, Flight subsection, has a troublesome indent. Those are just the ones I quickly noticed. The article probably could stand a copyedit or two as well. moreno oso (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if the wording has changed, a cleanup template with no information about what's supposed to be wrong is no use to anyone (which is one reason why we have more specific templates). Any article at all "may need cleanup" of one kind or another; such is the nature of a wiki. I am glad that you have listed some issues; it's a shame that the IP who added the tag didn't do the same. Having worked through some of WikiProject Arthropods/Cleanup listing, I can tell you that a lot of inappropriate or uninformative cleanup tags get added, and it is often necessary to simply remove them. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope to all. moreno oso (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? --Stemonitis (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I know theres a fly...
...that resembles a bumblebee. It looks like a bumblebee but in fact its just a big fly. I read that the reason why it looks like the bee is for protection. Animals will assume its a bumblebee and will flee so they wont get stung but the fly does not have a stinger at all.

Anyone know what I'm talkinga bout? --TKGB 00:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly you are thinking of bombyliid flies. Some species of them superficially resemble bumblebees. The one illustrated here is not the best example of the similarity, but you can do an image search on Google for other species.
 * Or maybe droneflies, which superficially resemble honeybee drones. This did not discourage one predator from making a tasty meal of one.
 * There are some of the larger Tachinid flies that could be mistaken for bumblebees, if one is not looking at them too closely.
 * Syrphid flies (sort of) resemble wasps.
 * And sphinx moths are sometimes mistaken for large bees. These are not flies (diptera) however, but lepidoptera. Maybe this will help. Pollinator 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently the fly I'm looking looks exactly like a bumblebee. All these are not what I'm looking for. Maybe that Tachinid is what I'm looking for. Okay thanks. --TKGB 05:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are also many species of hover fly (Syrphidae) that mimic bees and wasps http://www.amonline.net.au/factSheets/hover_flies.htm : —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kieransamuk (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Some robber flies (Asilidae) are fabulous mimics of bumble bees. Genera such as Laphria and Mallophora. Phoridae (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nests
The article states, that few species of bumblebees use the nest for more than one season, but that "some tropical species live in their nests for several years" However I live in germany and I have a bumblebee nest (big black-white-yellow bumblebees) in a hole, on the top of our garage (the gate has ben broken and thus open for years now). I've seen bumble bees flying into that whole for many years now. Now I am curious, if there are non tropic bumblebees, that use the nest for more then one season or if the spot is that good for a nest, that they repeatedly build independent colonies up there. -- unregistered user 19:18 07.07.2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.242.115 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

defence mechanisms
Bumble-bees, at least some subspecies of them, have more means of self defence then just the stinger. When touching a bumble-bee, it will strench several legs towards the harasser, if that doesn't work, it will retreat, only after that it might sting. I thing this behaviour should be mentioned in the article in a self-defence section. -- unregistered user 19:33, 07.07.2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.242.115 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll need a reliable source, see WP:V. It seems that it's not entirely clear how they avoid being eaten e.g.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Habitat
It says "primarily in the Northern Hemisphere although they are common in New Zealand and Tasmania". Sorry, but I've seen them everywhere in America (North and south, not sure about central america). You might want to check that out. I live in chile, and they are absolutely everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.4.63 (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote from flight section
Since a quote in French without a translation is pretty meaningless for the English-language Wikipedia, I've removed this section from the article: In 1934, French entomologist Antoine Magnan included the following passage in the introduction to his book Le Vol des Insectes:

Tou d'abord poussé par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai appliqué aux insectes les lois de la résistance de l'air, et je suis arrivé avec M. SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol est impossible.

Magnan refer's to his assistant André Saint-Lagué, who was apparently an engineer.

135.196.239.141 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The correct quote is now in the article with a reasonably good translation. I fixed the translation (which is widely given incorrectly on the internet by somebody who seems to have used a dictionary and didn't understand the construction ce qui se fait, meaning what is done.). Peterwshor (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Myth: Bumblebees can't sting
I have heard many times that bumblebees (and sometimes also honeybees) do not have stingers, a myth that has probably persisted because of its docile nature. In fact, until not too long ago, I believed this myth to be true because I never met anybody who knew better (and hadn't looked it up). Is this myth popular enough to be added? I figure maybe it could be mentioned in passing when talking about their non-agressiveness. AudiblySilenced (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source for this urban legend, then it can be included. I've worked with bees all my life, and have never heard this one. Where do you live that people say such things? Dyanega (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard this one from my wife actually. I've assured her that it is not true though, as I have personally been stung by them before. 65.246.63.68 (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I live in Québec, Canada, and have heard the same thing several times over the years, from relatives and some friends. That's actually the reason I came looking for this article today. I knew they weren't really aggressive unless you came too close without noticing them, but since I tend to be unlucky enough to cross their path often on bicycle rides, which can easily be perceived as an aggression, I was curious about the risks. 24.49.234.228 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This article states in the openinglines that bumble bees cannot sting which is then contradicted several times in the article. Which is it? Pwv (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)pwv


 * The introduction has been fixed. Graham 87 10:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When I was a child in Sweden it was common "knowledge" that bumblebees don't sting. In some versions the hairs could burn like a nettle instead. It seems from this section that this is not a totally obscure myth. Finding verifiable sources that some people have incorrect believes is obviously harder than verifying facts. Since we already have a justified myth section I think it should be edited in. I won't go close it, though (remembering the edit war on the "myth of viking horned helmets" vs "it's a myth that there exists a myth that vikings had horned helmets") 81.234.205.112 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Untrue fact
"The [buzzing] sound is actually the result of the bee vibrating its flight muscles, and this can be achieved while the muscles are decoupled from the wings—a feature known in bees but not other insects."

I've heard myself a horsefly with wings removed producing a very similar buzzing sound.

I had even filmed a short video. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvm8COe9trQ

So i believe the phrase "a feature known in bees but not other insects" should be removed or modified to "AND some other insects".

--188.244.44.102 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Andrey 'lolmaus' Mikhaylov lolmaus@gmail.com


 * I've removed it. I don't know much about insects, but according to Wikipedia, the flight muscles of all insects in the order Neoptera (of which the bumblebee is a part) work similarly. Graham 87 03:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bee & Clover image


I have to disagree with the removal of this image from the section Comments by Charles Darwin. It has now been removed twice by User: Alvesgaspar with the same edit summary: "Remove unecessary and out of context picture". The section contains an extensive quote by Darwin which makes very specific reference to the bumble bee and red clover. While one can argue that NO picture is ever necessary in a given article, how is it possible for a picture of a bee and red clover to be "out of context" in a discussion specifically regarding bees and red clover? It clearly illustrates the exact topic of discussion and seems to be as "in-context" as any image possibly could be. There may be too many images in the article overall, but this one fits well and should clearly stay. Thanks for considering this, Doc  Tropics  18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I did not noticed the connection with Darwin's text. But I only reverted the edit once (or intended to), during the period of the problems with the database. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I agree there are a lot of images in this article and some might be trimmed; this one just happened to be a "keeper". Happy editing, Doc  Tropics  19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nests?
The article does not explain what happens to the nest once the new queens and males leave? Does a new Queen take over or does the nest just die off never to be used again? Do bumble bees reuse their nest unlike wasps for instance, who never return once a season is over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.225.163 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

bumblebees befuddle boffins
User:Satch234 has declared that the image caption "A widely believed falsehood holds that bumblebees befuddle boffins, who calculated the creatures incapable of flight." is "inappropriate alliteration and informal tone. "Boffin," whether colloquialism or slang, is still too informal for use in an encyclopedia." I disagree. I request comments from other users. Thank you. -- Limulus (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Satch234. "bumblebees befuddle boffins" is a ridiculous phrase; when I saw User:Satch234's first edit summary on this issue, I thought it was a strange bit of vandalism, then when I had a look at the actual edit (i.e. removing the phrase), I couldn't believe the phrase was already in the article. Why defend it? - there are plenty of other ways of saying the same thing. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I liked it, and thought it was catchy. But it really is too informal for an encyclopedia. Graham 87 01:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree that it's too informal, and am unsure how widely used 'boffin' is outside British English. --Ef80 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never heard the words "befuddle" and "boffins". It's shouldn't be necessary to know jargon from British English in order to read an encyclopedia.  Joreberg (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious tag
The vibration in a plucked rubberband is due to elasticity of the rubber band. i.e. There is contraction and expansion of the 'solid' rubber band when it vibrates about its neutral position. The contraction and expansion is driven by the energy roller-coaster of kinetic energy being transformed into potential energy - just as in any example of simple harmonic motion. The only difference is that any real world example is going to be damped. I have not removed the statement outright, because it does seek to differentiate what one would expect for muscular movement, and gives the reader a sense of how the bumblebee's wings work. It seems to me that the frequency of nerve firings is a fraction of that of the wing movement, and that the magnitude of contraction/expansion when the nerve does fire, 'recharges' the potential energy bank in the oscillatory system that is the wing. But I don't have a citation for the same. 220.224.246.97 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The description that was given in the article (and tagged "dubious") was not dubious at all; it is a simplified description that fits reasonably well with research.
 * This type of muscles are called asynchronous muscles. I haven't found any support for your theory that the continuous operation of the muscles is due to "re-plucking" of the system synchronized with the wing beats at an (integer) fraction of the wing beat frequency.  And if your theory about this were true, it would be strange to use the term "asynchronous muscles" for such synchronized re-plucking...
 * If your theory were true, it would be very easy to see this on high speed video of insects; some wing beats (corresponding to the "re-plucking") would be much longer/stronger than the preceding ones (Which would have been dampened strongly after 10 or even 20 beats since the last "re-plucking"). I cannot see any such effect.
 * Therefore, with all due respect, I believe your theory is wrong.
 * Rather, from what I have found from the literature, while the muscles are operating, the individual firing of the muscles is triggered by the lack of tension. Rather than going into the details of this, which would be too elaborate for this article, I have included a link to the article about Insect wings which gives a starting point for digging into this matter, which is common to many insect wings and therefore shouldn't be given in this article about the bumble bee  anyway.
 * Joreberg (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct Common Name
Since bumble bees are real bees and not just something that looks like a bee, the correct common name found in almost any entomological text is bumble bee(s) - two words. Trfasulo (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's only true in the US, and is mostly a recent development (for example, consider that the two true bumblebee taxonomists from North America in the last century, Frison and Milliron, BOTH spelled it "bumblebee" - Milliron as late as 1973). Examine any textbooks, reference works, or other publications from outside the US or older than 1970 and you'll see that (almost without exception) "bumblebee" is treated as a single word. This is one case where I'd argue we should yield to the more well-established and widespread spelling instead of trying to force our revisionist spelling upon others. The use of "honey bee" as two words has a much longer and more visible and cosmopolitan history, in contrast. Dyanega (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case I have to disagree with you Doug. I think that the separate naming convention is sensible for all insects, although in practice it is mostly used in association with "-fly". In other words, deer fly, bee fly, moth fly are all true flies, whereas dragonfly, caddisfly, whitefly are not. Same with stink bug vs ladybug. This is a useful convention that actually conveys information.I don't see this as revisionist, just a rationalization of a currently unsatisfactory situation. When I correct people about this, they don't object- they are just glad to know the reason.Phoridae (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The bottom line: This is not revisionist. It's an argument for what is more 'correct'. Wikipedia is a living document. Word construction should reflect 'correctness' first as guided by biological taxonomy and 'convention' or 'popularity' second, IMHO. Tonica (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Remarks on the article
I read the entire article and I think I need to point out a few things:

1. "In temperate zone species, in the autumn, young queens ("gynes") mate with males (drones) and diapause during the winter in a sheltered area, whether in the ground or in a man-made structure."

The word "species" after "temperate zone" sounds really weird.

2. "New reproductives are produced in autumn, and the queen and workers die, as do the males."

"reproductive" and "produced" are redundant. This should be avoided.

ICE77 (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with either of those sentences, at least not in the way outlined. "Temperate zone species" is a fairly standard way of phrasing, and if you took "reproductives" and "produced" out of your second sentence complaint, it would cease to make sense. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there are probably half a dozen ways to write the same sentences in a more elegant way like:

1. "In temperate areas, in the autumn, young queens (gynes) mate with males (drones) and diapause during the winter in a sheltered area, whether in the ground or in a man-made structure."

and

2. "Reproduction occurs in autumn, and the queen and workers die, as do the males."

300 times better than the two above.

108.214.99.60 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Both of those suggestions change the meaning of what is being stated. In the first example, the original wording is referring to particular species, whereas the revised version could refer to any species if it happened to exist in a location with a temperate climate. In the second sentence, "reproductive" is a noun which describes an object, and refers to the type of offspring being produced, whereas "reproduction" is a noun which describes an act or series of events. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I've just had a look at my old paper dictionary (Collins, 1985), which only lists "reproductive" as an adjective, so it's possible that using it as a noun is a neologism, and perhaps should be avoided. I'm not sure how best to replace it however. I think "Offspring which will form the next generation are produced in autumn" keeps the meaning constant, although entomologists might advise if there's a more technically precise one-word term? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The words "zone" and "species" are two nouns. Therefore, they should never be placed next to each other. This is at the foundation of the grammar of the English language. It's a rule you cannot break unless you want to break the language itself. If you base yourself on a dictionary alone instead of common sense along with some elegant construction and better wording, then you'll probably accept horrible words like "invite" as a substitute to "invitation". "Offspring which will form the next generation are produced in autumn" is an equally ugly way to say what is already said above. "Reproductive" and "reproduction" are redundant in any case. ICE77 (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "temperate zone species" has ~400,000 hits in google, ~42,000 in google books and ~2,000 in google scholar.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ICE77, your approach seems to be that your prime concern is how "elegant" or "ugly" a sentence is, rather than whether or not its content is valid. "Reproduction occurs in autumn" is not saying the same thing as either "New reproductives are produced in autumn" or "Offspring which will form the next generation are produced in autumn". Mating occurs in autumn, but that's not the same as reproduction. With regard to your comment about two nouns never being placed next to each another otherwise the language is 'broken', I don't understand what you mean, seeing as such a thing is a perfectly commonplace and uncontroversial occurrence. Fish soup? Bread pudding? Pasta sauce? etc. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Anatomy section
This section would greatly benefit from a labelled anatomical diagram of a sagittal view a bumble bee, similar the one on the bee page. Does anyone have enough facility with PS/Gimp to create such a diagram? I imagine the picture on the bee page could easily be "bumblized" for use here, but I personally don't have the skills to do it.Corbiculad 14:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't one at bee any more, and there seems no great need for one here either. FWIW, their structure is not atypical for insects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Any reason why the clean-up tag was removed from the anatomy section? 99.232.9.225 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Portmanteau or compound?
The etymology section describes "bumblebee" as a portmanteau of "bumble" and "bee", and links to Wikipedia's "Portmanteau" entry. But that entry specifies that portmanteau involves contraction of stems of the component words, and that words involving no such contraction -- such as "starfish" from "star" and "fish" -- are compounds, rather than examples of portmanteau. So, one of these Wikipedia pages appears to be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.83.137 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Myth section
This section is stupid beyond belief. There has never been a myth (obviously) that bumblebees can't fly. Yet the militant(s) controlling this article won't let me delete that section. The whole article is discredited by that ridiculous paragraph. Who cares what some nerd calculated at a dinner party in Switzerland one night. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of anecdotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.99.247.70 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep. Regardless of the source of the myth, if the myth is widely known then it should be addressed in the article. Personally, I do remember having heard of this myth sometime in the past.  I did a quick google for bumblebee myth, and did see many hits related to the subject.  So I think that, on the basis of the apparent popularity of the myth through a very crude study, the information should stay until it is proven not notable.  If the scope of the myth could be indicated in the article (the country, continent, region, etc where it is known) then that would further justify keeping the myth in the article.  And no, I'm not a militant, nor do I have any special interest in this article.  --Dan East 11:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the history of this article, your removal of this information has been reverted three times by three different people. It is obvious which way the consensus is leaning, so please do not remove it again unless it is supported by the majority as discussed on this talk page.  --Dan East 11:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This myth is widely-known, widely-cited, and MORE than qualifies as "notable". Just because it is totally stupid does not mean it does not merit inclusion. Wikipedia, after all, has an article about "Bigfoot", too, and "crop circles", etc. Dyanega 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The myth is why I looked up Bumblebee just now. I recalled my father quiping in the early 1960's (Sydney Australia) "According to modern aerodynamic principles the wings of the bumblebee are insufficient to enable it to fly, but the bumblbee, not knowing this, flys."  So I looked it up on  Wikipedia.  If it hadn't been there I would likely have added it.  To me it is the most notable thing about them. GraL (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. But why is it regarded as a 'myth'. The date of the explanation as to how they can fly is dated around 2008. So before 2008, there was no consensus as how they actually did so. Obviously, the statement was meant to be apocryphal: if we apply our understanding to date of flight dynamics the bumblebee should not be able to flee. I don't think anyone really believed that someone sat down and proved it though. Macgruder (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Sources claiming that it was a myth are wrong.  But do we have any sources that explain the widespread error? 128.95.172.173 (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a notable myth about bumble bees and one of the commonest modern folklore stories. I heard it at Mensa brunches in the late 1980s. It has been around apparently since 1934. The joke, according to the laws of mathematics bumblebees can't fly but fortunately for bumble bees they don't know that, is used by skeptics to poke fun at taking mathematical proof too seriously but in fact it does point out the error in using the wrong mathematical model to describe a problem (according to formulae used to describe fixed wing aircraft, bumble bees can't fly; but according to formulae developed for helicopters, bumble bees can fly.) Naaman Brown (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. It wasn't a myth.  Why?  Because the math was finally worked out only in 1996, by Ellington and Insect Flight Group at Leeds in the UK, paper published in Nature.  SCIENCE: Aerodynamic Secrets of Insect Flight 1996  So, up until 1996 it was actually true that no calculation existed to explain the large lifting force created during insect flight.  Insect flight remained a mystery, and it's very odd that numerous sources try to deny this and label it "mythical."  Ellington's group discovered a major unsuspected vortex above the flapping wing, and this provided the solution to the missing lift ...which was the topic of the long-running apocryphal story.   In other words, it only became a myth in 1996.  Discussions prior to that date were valid and non-mythical: our ignorance of the dynamic separation and shed vortex was throwing off our calcs and simulations, and leading to our prediction that insects cannot fly.  (Ellington's group only worked with Hawkmoths.  Bumblebees were finally explained in 2000.) 128.95.172.173 (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence at the end of the Flight sub-section in the Myths section: "Bees beat their wings approximately 200 times a second, which is 10–20 times as fast as nerve impulses can fire." is not correct. Neural cells can generate action potentials with frequencies exceeding 200 Hz (Guyton & Hall, Textbook of Medical Physiology, Elsevier, 2005; or any other neurophysiology textbook or journal article). For this reason the sentence must be simply removed. At this point I do not know what to do with the information about the thorax muscles, it does not deal with the myths about Bumblebee, but at the same time I cannot remove it, because I know nothing about its correctness. AL458 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be renamed "How they fly"


 * the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight

Let's remove the sentence above. It has no place in the topic paragraph of this section. No one ever said that aerodynamics proved that the bumblebee couldn't fly. Ironic or jocular references to this notion notwithstanding the point was rather that traditional aerodynamics could not account for the fact that they do indeed fly.

This was usually cited as a critical example of the weakness of scientific theory in general, or sometimes as an admission that we often just don't know enough about real-world phenomena to explain it.

I want to recast the entire section in terms of the historical progression of ideas about how bumblebees fly. If, along the way, some scientist or engineer quipped (or said seriously) that they "can't fly" or "shouldn't be able to fly", we can certainly quote that. But then there wouldn't be a myth, would there? It would either be a joke or a mistake. The history of science is full of mistakes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not convinced that is the right approach; the discussion and references above show that the myth is considered to be worth discussing in the article. It was probably never a scientific mistake as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I finally got around to revising the myth section. Now mentions people making "ironic" observations, rather than stating flatly that "science" had made any claims. It also points out a (hidden?) assumption: i.e., smooth, rigid wings that don't flap.


 * Piling irony on irony, people have always known that bumblebees flap their wings: you can hear the buzzing, for one thing.


 * I'd like some help showing the historical progression of scientific knowledge in this area. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing no consensus for these changes I have reverted them. I have also created a new thread to discuss - this thread is eight years old - so please discuss there.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Auto-archive?
This talk page now has 44 discussion threads, some of which are 8 years old. Does anyone object to implementing auto-archive? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objections, I will implement auto-archive. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Dragonflies eating bumblebees
I saw a photo today of a dragonfly eating a bumblebee, but I can't find a reliable source that actually says they do. Can anyone find one? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to and renaming of "misconceptions" section
I have reverted the recent changes to the Myth section. These changes were proposed about a year ago (see Myth section thread above) and received no support from anyone other than the editor proposing them. The proposed version is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bumblebee&oldid=644875628

Is there any support for these changes? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reversion, the changes are not substantiated and not encyclopaedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no overwhelming opinion - I think I prefer the "misconceptions" way though, but not strongly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. There is only one notable misconception, and creating a subsection for that lone myth is silly. How about changing the section title to "flight misconception" or something like that? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's just the one. It's something between an urban myth, misconception, and history of scientific ideas. There's also a stray final paragraph which is perhaps attempting to resolve the muddle, but sits somewhat oddly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There used to be a second misconception about the buzzing of their wings, but it was removed. Agreed it's silly to have a "Misconceptions" section and presint only one. I've retitled the section and removed the sub-section. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's clearly an improvement. The main challenge for the article, however, is better citation; and probably a degree of reorganization, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need a misconceptions section along with a section or two on "How they fly" or "Source of the buzzing sound". I've always been interested in how insect wings work as compared to bird flight and the airfoil used in planes. Perhaps other readers will share this interest.

In particular, some students might come to Wikipedia, having heard that "bumblebees" can't fly and might like having a choice between "How they Fly" and "Misconceptions". A timeline of changing scientific thought over the years might also be of interest. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A single section, given that this is a subsidiary topic, is certainly all that could be justified without incurring suspicions of WP:COATRACKing. I think you'll find it's reasonably comprehensive now, complete with sources and quotations, and a little history. The history of scientific thought about insect flight is properly the subject of that other article, which is admirably clear on the mechanisms involved. It would not be appropriate to repeat that here. As for the title, I hope you'll agree that "Misconceptions about flight" neatly captures the sorts of search terms that are most likely to be employed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Winter Question
The section on nesting indicates that the Queen enters diapause during winter and that the drones die off, but does not mention what becomes of the workers. I might deduce that they also die off, but it would be nice if this were explicitly stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.207.118 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good suggestion. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Information from Study
I added some information from a study I found through the news regarding the use of pesticides and their effect on the bumblebee's foraging and pollinating abilities. Thought it would be important for anyone coming to this page to find some information on pesticide usage and its effect on bumblebees. I was not entirely to sure where to place the information so I added it along with where pesticide usage was mentioned under population control since development is also discussed to some extent in that section. Ctran24 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-foraging behavior
I am considering building an optical trigger to capture a bumblebee in flight. So, I went to Wikipedia for help in understanding their behavior. Around my house, I rarely see them foraging (actually on the flowers), instead a few of them will spend long periods of time patrolling the area around the flowers. Occasionally, two will fly is close formation for a few seconds. Is this territorial behavior? If it wasn't for the information in the article, I would guess that this is mating behavior. Can anyone elaborate on non-foraging behavior? Mattman944 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You're describing carpenter bee behavior, not bumble bees. Look at the Carpenter bee article fr more info. Dyanega (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hadn't considered that possibility. Confirmed, not a Bumblebee, shiny abdomen. Mattman944 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bumblebee. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017052743/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=dumbledor to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=dumbledor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Endangered Species List
The bumblebee has been added by the United States of America to the endangered species list. I have added the conservation status of the Bumblebee to the wikipedia page. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/11/509337678/u-s-puts-first-bumblebee-on-the-endangered-species-list --Figfires (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but you're wrong about one crucial thing: there are hundreds of bumblebee species (there is no such thing as "THE bumblebee"), and only one of those species is listed as endangered in the US. Please see Bombus affinis. Dyanega (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Evolution history
Would it be possible to post information regarding the species that bumblebees evolved from? --Figfires (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely the actual palaeo-species will ever be found as it would be one of many similar fossils, but the history is outlined and diagrammed in the Phylogeny section of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bumblebee. 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:
 * Added tag to http://fwww.researchgate.net/profile/Thibaut_De_Meulemeester/publication/233726151_Geometric_morphometric_analysis_of_a_new_Miocene_bumble_bee_from_the_Randeck_Maar_of_southwestern_Germany_%28Hymenoptera_Apidae%29/links/0912f50acac4873941000000.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211180241/http://www.banned-books.info/book-content.php?key=220 to http://www.banned-books.info/book-content.php?key=220

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bumblebee. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224121927/http://drkaae.com/content/chapter-18-bees-wasps-and-ants to http://drkaae.com/content/chapter-18-bees-wasps-and-ants

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Honey bees
The article refers to honey bees as relatives of bumble bees. It could point out that honey bees are in a different genus. Vorbee (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bumble bees naturally colonising Tasmania from New Zealand?
The article currently states "The New Zealand population of buff-tailed bumblebees naturally colonised Tasmania, 1,500 miles away, in 1992.[99]" This seems unlikely. I can't find the source referenced.

This article suggests they were brought in: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/09/18/3592865.htm

Seems unlikely that the bees would naturally make it all the way from NZ to Tasmania, to then be thwarted by the small gap between tasmania and the mainland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.59.205 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice catch! I managed to track down the text of the original source through a bit of Googling(I'm not linking to the site I found, since it's probably a copyright violation), but it doesn't say they came to Australia naturally at all, so i've removed the offending word from that senteence. Graham 87 14:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked that text further. Graham 87 15:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

wrong example
"Harmless insects such as hoverflies often derive protection from resembling bumblebees, in Batesian mimicry, and may be confused with them."

-the above statement is either wrong or poorly sourced (my bet is the 1st). all pictures at the hoverflies link look like WASPS and not like bumblebees. so plase either supply an image of a hoverfly looking hairy like a bumblebee, or otherwise resembling, ie.: color pattern, or, if the hoverfly article can not be brought into coherence with this statement, perhaps because hoverflies do look like yellowjackets and not like bumblebees (hoverfly: hairless and black-yellow striped like a wasp, not like a hairy and often other than black-yellow stripes bumblebee) then remove the contradictory statement from the bumblebee article accordingly and relocate this sentence to the wasp (or yellowjacket, or something similar) article - where it obviously belongs. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC).


 * There are a considerable number of hoverflies that are excellent bumblebee mimics, especially Volucella bombylans.Dyanega (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)