Talk:Bumblebee

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. Graham87 14:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked that text further. Graham87 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)

Cuckoo Bee

Why is the phrase describing this one specific type of bee, Cuckoo Bees, in the first section of the article? That seems like something that should be further down since it's only about one type of bee on this article with a much broader scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.200.134 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Because there are 30 species of cuckoo bumblebees; this is a decidedly non-trivial portion of the genus, and they exhibit major differences from other bumblebee species. It would be a serious omission if the introduction suggested that all bumblebees are social, or gather pollen, etc., without acknowledging the many species that are exceptions to the norm. Dyanega (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bumblebee vs. Bumble Bee

Entomologists use "bumble bee" and not "bumblebee" as is explained in the article "Is It Bumble Bee or Bumblebee?" It is also the case that dictionaries reflect casual or lay use of the bee's proper name. In the main text of the article, I can see where some uses are more aligned to lay naming; but, in other places such as describing the bee's classification, it would seem that the accepted naming by entomologists should be used. Because changing "bumblebee" to "bumble bee" (with appropriate capitalization) would amount to a substantial change, including a change perhaps to the page title, I would like to be guided on what the appropriate adjustment to this article would include. Serverscience (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No changes required. We don't follow a specific country's or society's lead, we use what's most common. Note that your link also makes clear that use in scientific works is also inconsistent. Given that "bumblebee" appears to be twice as commonly used [1] as is "bumble bee" [2] in everyday sources, that's just fine for us. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree re bumblebee. Eric ^talk 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as a world authority on bees, including bumblebees, the primary distinction is not really between entomologists and non-entomologists, it's mostly between American versus British English. Very few entomologists in the UK or EU use the two-word spelling variant. The article cited above is very misleading because it uses, as its source, American entomologists, and the Entomological Society of America's official guidelines. In plain fact, that article tells a white lie about one of its sources, even - they indicate Paul Williams as one of the co-authors of a book using the two-word spelling, as if he supports the practice, when in fact Paul (who is from the UK) objected to it, and was overruled by his American co-authors. If you visit Paul's own website, which is the definitive international source for information on bumblebees, it's spelled as one word. Personally speaking, I'm an American and I use the single-word variant because it's got a longer historical use, broader geographic use, and I find USA-centric revisionism to be an embarrassment. As far as I'm concerned you don't create or revise "common names" out of thin air - unless it's a name commonly in use, it's just a neologism, not a common name. Dyanega (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary advertising

Can the specific link to Bumblebee (film) be removed now? It's not a particularly significant film to deserve being the first thing you see when trying to read about the insect... Saii (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)