Talk:Stingless bee

Cleanup

This article reads like a dump of several external sources on meliponine bees - it really could use some organization, wikifying, and general cleanup. I've added a 'cleanup' tag. Dcfleck 13:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the references a bit -- adding markup, if nothing else. Wingman4l7 (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a picture. Cute 1 4 u

It's got a picture now. Wingman4l7 (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary context

Needs more of it 06:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Schwarziana/Plebeia spp

The textbook cited predates the article that discusses the species by five years. Nomenclature changes frequently in entomology, and I'm suggesting the textbook is out of date in this respect and that Schwarziana should be used, unless there is an even more recent name change. Bendž|Ť 14:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no - the fact is that the authors used outdated resources for the name of the species; Michener's is the most recent classification of Meliponines in print, unless you are aware of a publication that supercedes it. Just because the authors used older names does not mean their error should be perpetuated. Generic reassignments must be made formally; if I published a paper tomorrow that referred to this species as Trigona quadripunctata (which is an even older name), that would not mean the species was now placed in the genus Trigona. Dyanega 18:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I though peer reviewing stopped that from happening. How about putting Schwarziana in parentheses between the genus and species to make this clear to readers and to discourage anyone from changing it back? Bendž|Ť 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian bee researchers do not generally adhere to bee taxonomy published by non-Brazilians; they have been treating Schwarziana as a genus since 1990, and will probably never stop treating it as a genus. I know this because I worked for three years as a bee taxonomist in Brazil, and know all the bee taxonomists in Brazil personally. They tend to regard Michener and other non-Brazilians as unworthy. That's because they follow the lead of the old and venerable Padre J.S. Moure, the Father of Brazilian Bee Taxonomy, a Creationist and a Typologist; he does not believe in phylogenetics, and so he constantly describes genera that contain only a single species, such as Schwarziana, even if it renders a pre-existing genus paraphyletic. If Padre Moure says it is a genus, then the odds are that all other Brazilian bee taxonomists will say it is a genus, regardless of contrary opinion, evidence, or peer review, because to say otherwise would be disrespectful to Padre Moure. Putting Schwarziana in parentheses would be fine, but a more definitive solution would be to create an article for that species, so the taxonomy could be done in keeping with the internationally-regarded standard, which happens to be Michener. If I have a chance, I'll do that here soon. Dyanega 22:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I had a taekwando instructor once, who used to kiss bees. And these guys had stingers and everything. Well I guess you're the authority here, so let's not humour these splitters. Bendž|Ť 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed

This artical shows a severe lack of sources and inline citations. I'm tagging it as such. Help by experts would be most appreciated. --Lendorien 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of the information comes from the two books cited. Putting dozens of inline cites to just two sources, repeatedly, entails far more effort than it is worth. If anything that might be questionable appears here, I'll be certain to tag it. Dyanega 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me clarify that - for certain sections, these references are used; much of the remainder was contributed by User:Pollinator, who is a trusted editor and beekeeper - perhaps a note on his talk page might prompt him to supply a few more citations. Dyanega 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Living underground

I believe some species of stingless honeybee live underground, in hives built underground. This should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, it should have been, and so now it is. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra species

It seems that scaura (latitarsis) and schwarziana (quadripunctata), geotrigona (spp), tetragonisca (angustula), laurotrigona (muelleri) haven't been mentioned in the species list. See text linked at http://www.ufv.br/Dbg/bee/Versao2/welcome.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.216 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

See also the species list: http://www.ufv.br/Dbg/bee/Versao2/List.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.216 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140215065345/http://www.ufv.br:80/dbg/bee/Versao2/stinglessbees.htm to http://www.ufv.br/dbg/bee/Versao2/stinglessbees.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stingless bee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think this article should be upgraded in importance. Bendž|Ť 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed sighting in US California, worth including at this stage?

Hello, posting here for opinions since this discovery is pretty recent-- not many details to go off of. Nevertheless, there are several sources saying stingless bees were found in Palo Alto, CA USA, so it seems worthy of including a new section about them in the USA. (since there are sections for Australia & Brazil where they've been found) Sources that the bees have been found in Palo Alto: CBS NY Post These are the 2 most reliable sources I've seen reporting on it, there are others, and local stations reporting on it as well. Pretty recent (Late Aug 2021 - Current) and not too many details, so I'm posting here for opinions on whether it should be included or not before I do it. If nobody shares any opinions here after a few months ill go ahead and add the section. Pretty much just something like the Australia & Brazil sections but for the USA is what I had in mind. (Theres also some history of stingless bees being shipped to the USA in the very early 1900s so I've heard -- this article doesn't include any of that it seems -- so if anyone can find sources for that info, could update it as well)

DrDrago1337 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Article upgrade

Just added lots of referenced information about

• Geographical distribution and origins
• Behaviour, biology and ecology (castes, products and materials, types of nests, natural enemies)
• Pollination importance

Also organized the references into harvard citations with the list of books and articles at the end, organized by alphabetical order.

I plan to add more images, sections and translate this page into PT.

If you have anything to help build this article, please let me know so we can coordinate our effort

Sintropepe (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sintropepe, not sure why you used an {{OKA}} template here; was that in order to say "Okay" or something like that? In any case, what this template does, is to categorize this page as a translation performed by an editor associated with the Open Knowledge Association. If that was not your intention, please comment out or adjust the template. For the time being, I have enclosed it in <nowiki> tags, to remove the categorization. If you *did* intend to have this template, then please move it to the top of the page, just under the Agriculture banner. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I actually intended to add this template since the edit was made by my OKA activity. It was not a translation; I wrote everything my own. The template is also used for this kind of contribution. Thanks a lot for notifying me, I wasn't aware of this positioning matter. I'll add it to the top. Anything else, let me know. Sintropepe (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sintropepe, Ah, I see, thank you very much for taking care of this. I'll add something to the template instructions about where to place it, to avoid this problem in the future. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sintropepe, for your information, I have recategorized this page so it now appears in the "expand" instead of the "translated" category; that is, you can see if you scroll down this page that it is now in Category:Articles expanded by an OKA editor, and the category page itself should reflect this change in a few hours. If you edit this page, you will see parameter |category=expand added to the {{OKA}} template; this is what causes the correct categorization. As you continue your OKA editing, please continue to use the OKA template, and when your contributions to the article are improvements or expansion, please include parameter |category=expand with the {{OKA}} template. If you recall other articles you contributed to that were expansion rather than translations from other Wikipedias, please add the new parameter to those pages as well. Adding 7804j. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for clearing this up Sintropepe (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)