Talk:Apis cerana

message: I made a couple of edits to the following sections: thermoregulation, subspecies. I also added a few hyperlinks. The major issue with the article right now is the fact that the "division of labor" section does not have any citations. I am not sure what happened here (maybe a citation was accidentally deleted). It is important to cite all information on Wikipedia so that users know where to go to gain deeper insight into the information. That said, the article is very well written. Overall you did a great job! --Jkottapalli (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Edits

message: The entry maintained strengths in the flow of the article. I found the honeybee worker sterility to be interesting in that if the queen worker dies, the worker bees can turn on their ovaries to continue laying eggs. A category that should be included is a section specifying the roles, functions, and description of the queen. The article currently briefly mentions the queen and queen signaling in reference to worker sterility, but fails to expand on the role of the queen and its importance. Another category to be added is development and reproduction. Addition of this would assist in understanding sexual dimorphism and the differentiation of the sexes when the queen lays eggs. A further category to improve the entry would be hierarchical differentiation of roles within the hive. Since it is mentioned this is a social species, it would be essential to understand the roles of each of the bees and the importance of each role for the hive as a whole. The talk section rates the article as a start-class and of general low importance. I do agree with this ranking because the article is very elementary with almost no references to any articles for information. The commentaries recommends inclusion of certain information, such as the addition of a map and revision of subspecies as well as general advice to better organize topics. There is much more that should be added to this entry because the article lacks clarity and information, but most importantly source verification for accuracy.  Kew8888 17:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: General Advice

message: The eight subspecies listed here follow the most recent taxonomic revision (Engel, 1999). Many non-taxonomists are unaware of this work, and there are, accordingly, a great many websites and other resources that use the older, incorrect names. Please do not change the present listing until and unless there is a new taxonomic revision that supercedes Engel's work. Dyanega 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subspecies

message: I was led to believe that extensive grooming was only one of many mechanisms which Apis Cerana uses to combat varroa infestation. One other that I can recall is the deep perforated cappings on drone cells which prevent highly parasitised drone brood from ever emerging. I believe this is an important point, as many breeders of apis mellifera are incorporating good grooming characteristics into their stock as an attempt at breeding a varroa tolerant western honeybee. Apis Cerana shows us that this alone may not be enough (but is probably still worthwhile). 
My source is a lecture I attended by Dr. Otto Boeking, a bee researcher from Celle in Germany, but I don't have a written reference to hand - he did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.227.20 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some sources listed in his piece here Sean.hoyland - talk 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanisms of dealing with varroa 

message: Add  to the article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.6 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks, that's a great addition. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Add map

message: This article does a good job in including images, but most are inserted in a gallery section. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to have the images within the text to break up big chunks of reading and, hopefully, to support what the article is discussing. In addition, I think the article would benefit from better organization so that behaviors such as reproductive swarming is not mentioned before the section talking about reproductive swarming, or perhaps combining "Reproductive Swarming" and "Worker Sterility and Queen Signaling" under a larger topic. To contribute to the reorganizing, two general categories that are missing and could be added are a section about morphology and a section about habitat. Although the article compares this species to another in terms of size and comb cell size, there are not any concrete facts about the morphology and habitat, both of which give basic information about the species.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayxac (talk • contribs) 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Advice 

message: This entry does a good job of providing detailed information, for example the thermoregulation section, however the category seems to be too specific and needs to be supported with more general and relevant knowledge that leads into nest thermoregulation. For example, perhaps a category devoted only to nesting that included nest thermoregulation as a subsection under it.I think a category focused on sexual reproduction and development would be very beneficial as it would provide important information about the queen’s role in reproduction as well as give an understanding of sexual selection and sex ratios in the species.Another category to improve the entry would be one covering the foraging behavior and diet of the species, as this is basic information that should be provided when describing any species.Furthermore, a category on hive structure that informs readers of the varying roles carried out by the individual bees should be included.  This is important since bees are a social insect and their interactions among each other in the hive contribute quite a lot to their behavior. Lastly, the organization of the page could be improved to provide a better flow through the categories. Khan.nadia (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few suggestions 

message: I made significant changes and improvements to this article. I added the following sections: Overview, Taxonomy & Phylogeny, Description & Identification, Distribution & Habitat, Colony Cycle, Division of Labor, Communication, Mating Behavior, Kin Selection, Genetic Relatedness Within Colonies, Worker-Queen Conflict, Interactions with Other Species, Diet, Predators, and Defense. In addition, I edited some of the other sections, improved the overall organization of sections, and deleted information provided without a citation. Missmanasa (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Changes 

message: This article is very thorough and well-researched. The organization was clear and overall, the article flowed really nicely. My main edits included grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure editing throughout the page. I did notice a few places where there were no citations (in the "Subspecies," "Division of Labor," and "Absconding Behavior" sections). Also, I noticed that there were different spellings of melifera/mellifera. I followed the link, and it looks like "Apis melifera" (with one L) redirects to the page for "Apis mellifera" (with two Ls). I'm not sure if there are two accepted spellings of the word or if one is just a typo, but I would be consistent about the spelling of that throughout the article. Also, in the "Subspecies" section, the last sentence seems a little off topic/redundant--I changed the sentence order to make it a little more concise, but I wasn't sure if you were trying to say that despite the color similarities between the subspecies A. c. cerana/A. c. indica and A. mellifera, they can be differentiated by size, OR if you were trying to say that A. mellifera and A. cerana in general can be differentiated by size. I think that can be clarified a bit. Finally, I think the thermal defense bit (which is currently under the heading "Nest Thermoregulation") would be more appropriate under the "Defense" heading later on. Overall, good work! (Mpmaz (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions I 

message: This is a great article overall! Your writing is strong and there is a ton of information here covering all the important categories. I have a few suggestions moving forward. In the description section, you use some anatomical terms that most people won't know without explaining them. I threw in some links that provide some information, but it may be worth going back and giving a little more information explaining what exactly the parts you are referencing are. This is a good general rule too, to do a little extra explaining or at least provide some links if you use terms that are not within the typical knowledge of your average reader (you do a good job of this with your explanation of the haplodiploidy). I also thought you should explain the thermoregulation methods a little better, particularly how they are able to keep their hives at temperatures significantly above the ambient temperature. Beyond that, I made a few small text edits to improve sentence flow, but your writing was very strong as it was. A great start and good luck with the rest of the project!
Melliott132 (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions II 

message: This is a very well written article.  I added a few hyperlinks and fixed some minor grammatical errors throughout.  The layout of the page was good and I thought all the information flowed quite nicely.  I did notice that a few of the sections could use more citations, specifically the "Division of Labor" and the "Absconding Behavior"sections. The "Nest Thermoregulation" subsection has one citation, but I think it needs some more throughout that paragraph.  I found the "Worker-Queen Conflict" section quite interesting, specifically how worker bees fertility is controlled by the queen's signals.  I also thought the "Water Requirement" section brought an interesting perspective, as I had really only thought about the food aspect of the bees diet until reading this entry.  Overall, great job!! Khan.nadia (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review I 

message: This article is very well researched and presents a thorough overview with specific details about this bee. I think that the content is well presented, but the organization of the article could be restructured. I think that the information presented in the second paragraph of Description and Identification could be redistributed into different sections of the Distribution and Habitat section such as Nests or Nests thermoregulation as that information pertains to these categories. The Absconding Behavior section should be placed below the Reproductive Swarming section as reproductive swarming is referenced in the absconding section. I think that Diet and its subheading should be placed elsewhere and not under Interactions With Species because the information presented in these sections don't pertain to or involve other animal species.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasikareddy1019 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review II 

message: This article is extremely detailed and thoroughly written. I especially enjoyed the galley portion of this article in addition to the in depth Interaction with Other Species subheading. However, as a reader I did have some difficulty comprehending the level of detail due to the organization of the article. A lot of the headings are fairly long, which is slightly overwhelming as a reader, so I would suggest going through and reorganizing some of the headings as the comments above have mentioned. Given that the nest is described in both the Description and Identification in addition to the Distribution and Habitat portions, I combined the two descriptions underneath the Nest subheading, in order to help make the information less repetitive and more concise. Additionally, remember to include citations throughout your article, I found it to be a unclear what the sources were in the Nest Thermoregulation, Division of Labor, Absconding Behavior, and Reproductive Swarming subheadings. I think this article has a lot of potential and a lot of great information, overall really well done! Paanur (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C480:A320:DD77:25E9:139B:C7FA (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apis cerana. 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/20070226220722/http://photo.bees.net:80/gallery/search.php?=&searchstring=cerana to http://photo.bees.net/gallery/search.php?=&searchstring=cerana
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214004709/http://www.moraybeekeepers.co.uk/nosema.htm to http://www.moraybeekeepers.co.uk/nosema.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714225827/http://mnbldb.snu.ac.kr/ to http://mnbldb.snu.ac.kr/
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) 11:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to untangle these names, but I think that the last sentence of the lead of this article could possibly provide the the guiding principle. It's all a bit confusing and in some cases contradictory, but if anyone is cluey on entomology they may know where to look for a definitive answer. I'll add a few more links to look at:
*World Atlas only mentions A. cerana;
*TNAU Agritech Portal (New Delhi) only mentions A. cerana indica; 2. Bee Species Description of unknown publication (2005?) from the FAO says "Another name used for Apis cerana is the Asian hive bee, and it is sometimes incorrectly named Apis indica";
*The Asian honey bee (Apis cerana) and its strains - with special focus on Apis cerana Java genotype: Literature review (Queensland Govt, 2013) says (map caption, p.10): "The ‘Plains’ variety within Morphocluster III (previously A. cerana indica) has recently been genetically split into a new species (A. indica) (Lo, Gloag, Anderson, & Oldroyd, 2010)";
*Longevity, food consumption, and foraging performance of Apis cerana and Apis mellifera in mixed colonies (2019 study) abstract only refers to A. cerana, but one of its sources has A. cerana indica in the title.
Hmmm, perhaps this last comment needs more attention, and there is a comment about this on Talk:Apis cerana indica by  quoting the Lo study mentioned above. Either way, something needs to change from what we have at the moment! All suggestions welcome. Even better if someone can do the work required! (This was a small diversion for me...)
Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just read some of the background literature, it is unclear whether, in the 10 years since the proposal was made to synonymize all subspecies of cerana, the community of bee researchers and taxonomists has actually adopted this new concept of the species in which no subspecies are recognized. If that is the primary source of contention and confusion here, then the standard application of Wikipedia policy is to adopt the consensus view for the article, but cite the minority view; the most relevant policy is probably WP:UNDUE, which is worth reading if it is not familiar. The way to treat the article is therefore dependent on whether it is possible to determine what the majority view is: (1) if the majority view, as of 2020, is that there are no subspecies of Apis cerana, then all the articles referring to cerana subspecies should be merged or turned into redirects, and the section on taxonomy should be greatly reduced so all it says, essentially, is that while subspecies used to be recognized (citing Engel 1999), they are not considered valid any more (citing Radloff et al. 2010). (2) if the majority view, as of 2020, is that the subspecies are valid (i.e., if the Radloff et al. paper has not gained acceptance in the scientific community), then the portion of the article referring to the Radloff et al. analysis should cite it as representing a minority view, and the existing article(s) left otherwise largely intact. Dyanega (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: 1. "The principal method of communication is the waggle dance".
Is that really true? I would expect pheromon is the way the A. cerana communicates (similarly to the A. mellifera).
2. "Neighboring bees observe and learn this dance and can then follow the same pattern, utilizing the odor of the flowers"
Is that really true? I don't see how a dancer can explain the smell of flowers. I would expect the dance to be decoded in terms of direction and distance to the patch of flowers (similarly to the A. mellifera).
3. "Within the honey bee colony, a queen bee typically mates with 10 or more males."
I doubt the queen mates with 10 males within her colony. That is odd. I would expect it to be 10 or more males from another colony (similary to the A. mellifera).
4. "Apart from the queen bee, the only other sexual members of the society are the male drones, whose only function is to mate with the queen, after which they will die."
That is not well explained. What about the workers which happen to be females? Their ovaries are inhibited from developing when a queen is around. The label "sexual members" is quite ambiguous.
5. "As one queen generally mates with over a dozen males"
This sentence not only is inconsistent with point 3 above but it is also not saying where the drones come from.
6. "In this system, virgin queens sharing the same father will have a genetic relatedness of 0.75 and those of different fathers will have a genetic relatedness of only 0.25. The females workers in the colony are related to the queen's sons by a genetic relatedness of 0.25."
I would be inclined to use 75% and 25% instead of 0.75 and 0.25. Percentages are much more meaningful.
7. "Mixed pollens possess a high nutritive value and actually supply all the necessary materials for proper development of young animals."
What? Animals?
8. "workers may also obtain food from the queen, while drones acquire food by ingesting material regurgitated by other drones."
Is this true?
9. "colonies of bees consume large amounts of water in order to dilute honey"
How is that possible? Honey is produced from plants and it typically has a decent amount of water which is reduced by evaporation. I never heard of honey bees injecting water into honey to dilute it.
10. " This method involves the wasps taking up a position in front of the beehive, while facing outwards away from the entrance towards returning foragers."
What method?
11. "As the Vespine wasps approach the entrance to the honey bee nest, more guard bees are alerted, which in turn increases their probability of being killed by heat-balling bees."
This is redundant with the "Thermal defense" section.
12. "Alternatively, however, in the presence of a wasp, the bees may also just withdraw into their nests and await the heat-balling circumstances to develop naturally."
This does not make any sense.
13. "Apis cerana has also coevolved with the mite Varroa jacobsoni and thus exhibits more careful grooming than A. mellifera, thus has an effective defense mechanism against Varroa that keeps the mite from devastating colonies."
Is the second Varroa the Varroa destructor?
ICE77 (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and questions