Talk:Osmia rufa

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: PhonoxClassic, Mkfreiler, Kew8888.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

General Comments: Wikiproject Behavioral Ecology
This article is beautifully written and extremely informative. I have listed below some changes that may assist in the flow of information as well as details that may be included in order to improve the article. I have also noted some details that I have already changed, which may be changed back if seen as not beneficial.

The overview section contained the statement “Despite being… these bees can be seen gathering, or aggregating together” and was replaced with “these bees can be seen aggregating together” so that the term is not repetitive. Further, for the sentence “they will only sting if handled very roughly [between the fingers]” the bracketed phrase was deleted as it seemed unnecessary. For the sentence “Females only mate once… determine the sex ratio of [their] offspring based on their body size” it should be specified what “their” is referring to (the female or male bee).

For the Taxonomy and phylogeny section, the term Hymenoptera was hyperlinked in order for those interested in the general order of the species to look it up. It was also stated that there are three subspecies of O. rufa, but only one of them was listed. I would suggest to write all 3 subspecies if the information is available.

For the Description and Identification section, perhaps it may be better organized by separating males and females into distinct paragraphs rather than mixing them together. This is up to the writer because some statements are used to compare the sexes to each other, which may be more difficult to understand if the information is split up. Also, the foraging distance information may be moved to the distribution and habitat section as it appears slightly out of place in this section.

In the Colony Cycle section, the terms mandible, maximallary, labial lobes, and chorion were hyperlinked for those who wanted more information on the term to access. Otherwise, the information in this section was very detailed.

For the Color vision section, it may be beneficial to expand on the trichromatic color system by stating which colors are specific to the bee. This would allow for a greater understanding of what types of flowers the bee targets. Further, an understanding of the spectral sensitivity purpose should be clarified as well as expanded upon.

For the Division of Labor section, it is very short and thus may help to expand on the specific roles of females that work alone in the nest as well as males. Even if there is not much for the male to do, simply stating “the male exists purely for reproduction/foraging” would clarify the division of labor among the sexes. The Mating Behavior section was very well written and very clear. For the Sex Allocation section, it may help to include one sentence after “Specifically, larger females are able…” that explains why collection of pollen would decrease chance of parasitism for the females. If the reason is not known as of now, it would be best to state that “the reason for this is not currently known” rather than to leave it open ended.

For Kin Recognition and discrimination, “This behavior [has suggested]” was changed to “suggests” in order to make the information in present tense. Also, “One rationale for this behavior [has been that]” was changed to “is” to make the rationale in present tense.

The Diet section states “Pollen consumption has also been suggested to impact the fitness of individuals in the colony” and this should be expanded upon by explaining why. As of now, it remains slightly unclear. If it may relate to the information earlier that stated that more pollen from females leads to less parasitism, it would be beneficial to clarify that and either restate it in this section or hyperlink to the previous statement.

For the sting section, it is not mentioned if males have a sting but instead focuses on females. It would be good to specify whether certain parts of this section refers to males or females. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kew8888 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits
In the opening paragraph I changed "it's" to "its" and reworded the last sentence for clarity. I edited the last sentence in the first paragraph of the description section to maintain parallel structure. I removed a couple of comma splices throughout. Danakes6 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Review and Edits
This article covered interesting information on species interactions and unique behaviors of this bee. However, I added some missing information and made a few general edits to enhance clarity and coverage. For this species I added more to the overview as it was only a couple sentences long and Wikipedia recommends 200-600 words. I also added a description of the Hymenoptera order into the taxonomy section, which was missing. There was a missing reference in the behavioral section on color vision, so I supplemented that with a proper peer-reviewed article reference. I also found a paper on foraging distance in bees that included Osmia rufa, so I went ahead and added this information and the reference to the description section. Lastly, I made some general wording changes if I thought there was some grammatical inconsistencies or a better way to word something.

Mkfreiler (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review from a Dude
Hey, pretty nice article. A lot of information and a whole lot of citations. Too much in some cases actually. There were a few instances where you cited the same source

ie: Sentence 1. [1] Sentence 2. [1] Sentence 3. [1]

I deleted the first two citations and left only the final, as it is already implied that the first two citations are also from the same source. I also removed some citations you had placed in the middle of sentences and not after a comma, moving them to the end of sentences instead.

In your description, you use "this bee" and "these bees" several times. This should be changed to "It", "O. rufa", or the respective noun to maintain a level of formality. This should be done for every instance in the article.

"Specifically, males are 8–10 mm in size, while females are 10–12 mm in size."

Qualifying terms such as "Specifically" should be avoided as they are unnecessary. If you are specific, it is evident that you are specific. You use "specifically" several other times in the article, all of which should be omitted.

"Males are 8-10 mm in size, while females are 10-12 mm in size."

"The reason for the sexual dimorphism is due to provision size mass, in which females consume more pollen than males.

First, "The reason for" and "is due to" is redundant. One at the most should be used. The "the" in "the sexual dimorphism" should be excluded. "provision size mass" is grammatically incorrect, as is the use of "in which".

The revised sentence should look something like: "Sexual dimorphism is due to difference in size mass, as females consume more pollen than males."

This claim seems like an oversimplification. Checking the citation given, I found no mention of this. Wikipedia guidelines state that no individual inferences should be made in articles, so this sentence should be omitted.

"Research studies reveal that the temperature in brood cells affects the body size of these bees, with body size decreasing as temperature increases."

Grammatically, including "research" and "studies" is redundant. "That" is unnecessary. "....decreasing....increases" is grammatically incorrect. Structurally, "Research studies reveal that the" can be omitted entirely, it is implied. "Brood cells" can be shortened to "Brood". This makes the meaning clearer.

The sentence can be shortened to "Brood temperature plays a role in body size; body size decreases as brood temperature increases." That even can be shortened to "The body size of O. rufi decreases as brood temperature increases."

You make similar mistakes throughout the article. Fix them using these examples as guidelines.

PhonoxClassic (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article touched on a lot of different topics related to the bee species, and the colony cycle and mating behavior were especially thorough. There were some issues with hyperlinks in the article. There are a lot of hyperlinks in this article that show up red, meaning they do not actually link to a Wikipedia page. I don’t think this is problematic for particular species names, but for terms such maximallary and spinacular I think it is problematic. You could either delete the hyperlink, or try and define those terms within the text itself. For example, I deleted the hyperlink for polyectic in the introduction, and defined what the word meant. As well, if you’re using a species name for the first time, it might be best to use its full name and not the abbreviation. One way to improve the article is to add some more images, as there is currently only a single image within the body of the article. Good work overall! Kevin.george1 (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy and phylogeny
Why is this article still titled Osmia rufa when most authorities seem to use Osmia bicornis as the name for this bee? The article even refers to this.Quetzal1964 13:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If Osmia bicornis is the accepted term, the entire article probably needs to have the name replaced before the article is retitled. And, a redirect page would need to be created, as Osmia rufa is named in several other articles.  Wikipedia may have guidelines as to how long a new name is generally accepted before there is a switch, but I'd guess that it is a problem they deal with frequently -- names of the biota are always getting changed and habits (memory) changes more slowly.  It seems that name changing is a l-o-n-g process.
 * The sentence in this section that you cite:
 * O. bicornis is the current scientific name for this bee, although it was formerly known as O. rufa.[7]
 * might be revised to something like: Osmia bicornis is the preferred scientific name for this bee, although it is still frequently referred to as O. rufa.[7]


 * Within this same section I'd clarify this sentence:
 * Of the 11 species identified in England, O. rufa is both the largest and most common species present.[8]
 * by adding "of Osmia", so that it reads: Of the 11 species of Osmia identified in England, O. rufa is both the largest and most common species present.[8]  (Assuming that this is the writers intent -- it is fuzzy and that is my best guess.)

GeeBee60 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) O. bicornis is not the "preferred" name, but the one and only currently correct and valid name. There are no "preferred" scientific names (and haven't been since the 18th century); a scientific name is either correct or wrong. O. rufa is a wrong name and should not be used.
 * 2) The subspecific name O. r. bicornis is utter nonsense, since rufa and bicornis refer to the males and females of the very same population. Using both at the same time is not permitted.
 * 3) See the German Wikipedia for a concise history of the taxonomic confusion. Briefly, William Kirby (entomologist) determined that both names referred to the same (sub)species and at first made rufa the synonym, but since bicornis was mentioned by Linnaeus only afterhe had described rufa, Kirby later changed his mind, believing that the first-mentioned name is the valid one. But actually, the first revision (in ths case, Kirby's initial oppinion) fixes what name is valid, hence it's Osmia bicornis. 2001:4DD6:B491:0:2120:88F6:178B:8E1A (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism
The text about sexual dimorphism is shaky indeed. In the similar North American Osmia lignaria, with whom I have long familiarity, size is most definitely related to pollen consumption. But the females are provisioned with more pollen than the males, and this proportion seems to remain in place even if conditions lead to smaller or larger bees (tunnel nest diameter, availability of food). Thus a male can be fed more food and will grow bigger, or a female less food and grow smaller. In an aggregation of Osmia, large males can be found (infrequently) that are the same size as smaller females, but I have never opened a single nest (e.g a nest with all the progeny from one female) and seen every cell provisioned equally with some provisions are left uneaten -- unless the larvae fails to survive. As written it seems to suggest that males consume less because they need / want less. Instead there are bigger bees -- male and female, or smaller bees -- male and female, depending upon how the cells in the nest are provisioned.

I confess that I have never opened all the dormant cocoons from one nest to confirm that the smaller cocoons in one nest are inevitably male, but in twenty years I have opened many cocoons and seen many many adult Osmia: females are generally bigger than males for these -- and most -- solitary bees. Because this is anecdotal -- "original research" -- my observations only belongs in TALK. But I'd be very surprised if my observations have not been documented by numerous researchers, I just don't want to do the research of the research right now. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from Osmia rufa
All of the above was copied from the Talk page for Osmia rufa and I will now redirect that page to this. Quetzal1964 09:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC) talk