Talk:Eastern carpenter bee

message: 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 interesting fact stated in the beginning states that there is no” queen whose sole job is to lay eggs while relying on the resources and labor of worker bees.” Although the fact is interesting, the sentence appears to be missing a second part to it, which is to actually state what the role of the queen bee is or what replaces that function of the queen bee. This is mentioned later in the Dominance Hierarchy section, so I added that primary females take on the roles of the typical queen bee to the overview section. This allows for clarification of the interesting fact. 
Under Description and Identification, the distinction between females is extremely informative in distinguishing physical distinctions of gentrification. Yet, this section fails to mention or at least hyperlink the terms primary, secondary, and tertiary females. It is essential to define these terms as those unfamiliar with the species may be confused. Since this is mentioned in the Dominance Hierarchy section, I added a link that would guide a reader to that section when the primary, secondary, and tertiary female terms were mentioned (hyperlinked ‘females’). 
The Taxonomy and Phlogeny portion is very broad and does not contain much detail. It only states that the species belongs to a genus as well as that it is the distribution of the genus. This detail should be moved to the Distribution and Habitat section, but due to mention of genus I merely hyperlinked internally to the Distribution and Habitat section. More specificity, as well as a map of areas occupied, would prove beneficial for the Distribution and Habitat section. Furthermore, specific areas of distribution are included here (http://www.insectidentification.org/insect-description.asp?identification=Eastern-Carpenter-Bee) for specific states that the bee inhabits. 
The Nesting portion stated “These shavings are then used to create partitions between cells.” Specificity of what cell is being referred to was added by stating “plant” cells. Further, a grammatical correction of it’s to it is was done. 
In the Dominance Hierarchy section, oviposition should be hyperlinked in order for those unfamiliar with the term to be able to look it up. Thus, I added a hyperlink the oviparity Wikipedia page. In this section it is a bit unclear of how a tertiary female may become a primary female because it seemed that they were distinct based purely on size (from the description and identification section). Yet, this section states that it was due to overwintering. Perhaps clarification that overwintering time span allows for the female to grow and develop and thus become larger in size would connect the two concepts better. 
The Division of Labor section should be specified to “Division of Labor Among the Sexes” because the Dominance Hierarchy portion describes division of labor amongst females. 
The Diet section is very sparse in information. Addition of what species this bee typically preys on, such as a particular flower, would prove beneficial in understanding its diet. It states the flower record of “Abelia, Bidens, hex, Lespedeza, etc.” on the following link: http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Xylocopa+virginica#Hosts if you would like to add that. 
Under the Mating Behavior section, the initial statement “Males require motion in mating” appears awkward and a bit out of place. This was altered to “Males require female activity, specifically flight, in mating.”
The Kin Selection section states “X. virginica pairs show more aggression” but clarification of ‘pairs’ is needed. To make the sentence make more sense, the term pairs was deleted. 
The Life Cycle section states “Eggs are laid starting farthest from the exist hole.” Exist was most likely a typo for exit, so that mistake was fixed. Further grammatical corrections include changing “synchronize” to “synchronizes” 
Territorial Behavior in Males does not mention the purpose of claiming territories within a nest. Perhaps, mention of the purpose such as “to better protect the colony based on a distribution of boundaries to males in the nest” would allow for more clarification. Further, the purpose of marking the entrance of the nest should be stated. Even if it is simply “to ward away other bees,” it would be beneficial to mention.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kew8888 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments: Wikiproject for Behavioral Ecology

message: It would be nice to include references here.--Filll 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Humbly, I admit that I am no expert entomologist.  I am a person who has observed these creatures for ten years.  Their first burrow that I noticed appeared in 1996.  An older burrow may have existed prior to 1996, but I was unaware of its existence.  As of January, 2007, there are four or more burrows in this old house in which I live.  The creatures are inactive now because of cold weather.  Snow is on the ground; the temperature of the air is at 27°F (-2°C).  The bees will reappear around April 15th, 2007 (in this locale).
I don't know why a "bombus perplexus" would choose the inside of my house as a perch.  The window sill in the photograph is about 20 feet from the burrow where the carpenter bee excavated the "castings" of which I took photographs (see the article).  I assumed that the bee was an immature woodcutter of the sort that I call "runt" (for lack of a better word).  
I am leaning towards the belief that woodcutter bees live for years.  I am willing to speculate that if a "runt" successfully survives its first winter, it emerges from underground as a larger bee, then goes on to feeding on many different flowers from springtime to autumn.
I have never observed a "male" woodcutter in the act of returning to the burrow to hibernate through the winter.  I'm convinced that "he" lives underground through the winter.  Around April 15th, 2007, one will appear outside of the burrow (hibernaculum) where it will hover for hours on end (provided that the sun is shining brightly and that the air temperature is around 80°F (25°C) which is normal in this locale).  I have seen that occur year after year.  
About six years ago, I observed a clash between two large females.  One received a gash in its abdomen, bled, and probably died.  Since that time I"ve felt that only one large mature female occupies each burrow, though it may also occupy two burrows (one being vacant most of the time).  
I've only observed "mating" one time in ten years.  Several "males" were attracted to one female.  Brief "mating" occurred in midair and lasted about one second.  They are not like beetles, that's for sure.  
Someone has erased my caption and replaced it with the word "megachilid," however, the bee in the image is the same old mature female woodcutter that has been here for years.  It is now resting inside of the burrow from which those "castings" were tossed.  The "castings" includes some yellowish matter which I believe is old, stale, unused food.  I don't know if a "megachilid" excavates tunnels in old wood.  The bee that I photographed excavated its tunnels.  PixOnTrax 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before adding any such information to the article, be sure you include a citation to a reliable source. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the only person who has viewed those bees.  In other words, I am the "reliable source."  PixOnTrax 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: They've lived here for ten years

message: Carpenter bees don't usually hibernate in the ground. They hibernate in the nest. In certain places where the climate is right -- e.g. in Georgia -- they will nest in clay instead of wood, which means they will hibernate in the ground, but it's very rare. Whichever, they hibernate in the nest. If the natal nest is in the ground, that's where the male hibernates. 
If the alpha female is usurped in the late summer she will find or build and new nest, and she will take her "son(s)" with her. 
Some bumblebees look a lot like carpenter bees and those bumblebees almost always hibernate underground. Some others sometimes hibernate in rotting wood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About hibernating

message: My interest has been excited by the identifying (such as it may be) of one creature as being the "Confusing Bumblebee bombus perplexus" in one image. I want to know more about the alleged "bombus perplexus" bee.  What is the story?  Please explain more in detail. Gracias.  PixOnTrax 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am anxiously awaiting some "bombus perplexus" commentaries and clarifications.  Hurry, please.  PixOnTrax 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bombus Pennsylvanicus is more likely.  I have viewed some photographs on them Internet.  The furry bee on the window sill may have innocently deceived me into believing that it was a woodcutter.  PixOnTrax 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "bombus perplexus" must be explained to me

message: Several blurry images which may be sharpened with the proper photograph manipulating software.  There are several black and white wasps devouring a ripe pear.  A tiny woodcutter has scurried in to snatch a bite of the pear, too.  It is at the tip of the white arrow.  This is my proof that small woodcutters walk along the ground.  The pear is lying on a concrete walkway beneath a pear tree. The images are from a video that is in "pause" mode and then photographed.  PixOnTrax 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the photo-manipulating and enhancement experts?  Submit a clearer image, please.  PixOnTrax 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Runt images

message: I'm located in a cold climate with snow covering the ground.  Does a "megachilid" live in cold climates?  Woodcutters are a common bee is in this region.  PixOnTrax 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where does a "megachilid" bee live?

message: Hi. You admit that you are no expert entomologist; hopefully, then, you can understand when an expert entomologist has written and edited a page, as in this case, they might not want their hard work removed or altered by someone who knows nothing about the subject matter. Your photo of a leafcutter bee was removed; it was correctly identified by the person who changed your original caption; leafcutters live everywhere in the world that there are plants with leaves that can be cut. Your photos on this talk page are of bald-faced hornets, with a bumblebee in the background; these photos also do not belong here, and Bombus perplexus does not nest in wood, nor do any other bumblebees. You obviously have carpenter bees on your property, and you are evidently confusing them with other bees you are seeing in the area. Your theory about "runts" is physically impossible, as insects do not change shape or size after they reach adulthood. Finally, all carpenter bees only live a single year, though daughters may re-use their mother's burrow (or share it temporarily with her, if they are both alive at the same time), or other females may move into abandoned burrows. I hope this solves some of your confusion. Dyanega 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that a "megachile" stores tiny sticks inside of woodcutters' excavations and then seals the entrance.  PixOnTrax 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one, Megachile sculpturalis, uses old carpenter bee burrows. Dyanega 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear PixOnTrax 

message: Having nothing else to do with my time, I recorded several videotapes of the bees.  I have taken photographs of them.  I am not sophisticated enough to place a videotape onto the Internet. I simply don't know how. 
The woodcutters in these parts live longer than one year.  Full-grown "males" will appear as soon as the weather turns warm and sunny.  
Someone should edit out the statement that the hovering bees are "looking for mates."  The hovering bee is on the lookout for maurauding insects which often fly past nearby.  I have stood on my porch and seen them many times.  Now, please do not accuse me of conducting Wikipedia's greatest sin:  "original research."  PixOnTrax 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carpenter bees are among our earliest bees here, too. The males are easily identifiable by their white faces and their hovering around (while the females do the work). Thay are not patrolling; they will attempt to mate with just about anything that flies (even small birds); and they will investigate anything that moves. They have no stingers, thus no defense is possible. Pollinator 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "pet theories" may, if anything, be more potentially damaging to Wikipedia than "original research". In this case, I'm afraid your conclusions about what you have been seeing happen to be wrong - many scientists have observed the same behaviors, and documented what the life cycle is. First, they live only a year. Just because you see a bee in a burrow two years in a row does not mean it is the same bee. Second, only males hover, and they are only looking to mate with females, and part of that is they have to chase away other males from their territory. They will fly after ANYTHING, because it could turn out to be either a female or a rival, and their whole life depends upon success in such "romantic" endeavors. If any "marauding" insects happen to get chased away, then that is what we call a "fringe benefit." Dyanega 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Rivals" is the ideal word.  I have been attempting to state that there is competition between the "males" and the "male" that is hovering.  The hovering bee is merely the strongest (fittest) "male" bee.  As its "marauding" competitors attempt to move into its "territory" or domain and gain access to the burrow, it fends them off.  "Males" are able to fly much more adroitly than females.  "Females" are larger and fly more slowly. Living only one year seems odd (to me) because fully-grown bees appear in this locale around April 15th each year.  Obviously, they have been sacked out someplace during the snowy months.  PixOnTrax 11:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually there are two things stated above that are probably not true.  First, some Xylocopa virginica females do live two seasons.  In fact since most females do not reproduce in their first summer (that following the 1st winter) and so they are all almost a year old when they reproduce.  Second, and this is being picky, but, the male that is hovering near a nest is more likely positioning for contact with females.  So, he is not really guarding the burrow but rather the territory that has the most females, and of course that is the one with the most burrows.  Although, this is sort of a tricky distinction.
About guarding: There are two species of flies whose larvae are parasitoid on the bee larvae. 
The larger one used to be called anthrax tigrinus. An older name is argyramoeba tigrina. Since the 1990s it is xenox tigrinus. The adult is as big as a carpenter bee itself and hovers near the nest in August, and shoots microscopic eggs at the wood outside the nest, like a machine gun. The larvae, which are microscopic, hatch almost immediately and go into suspended animation, hiding in cracks, until next May or June, whereupon they enter the nes. If intercepted at all it is by the female helpers inside the tunnels. Males are occasionally see hovering in August or September. There is no proof they are keeping these flies away but it is a possibility. 
The smaller fly is the size of a housefly, and enters the nest as an adult in the season when the bees are provisioning. If successful she lays eggs and about ten larvae will grow up on one xylocopa larva. However, the females flies are frequently chased away by the male xylocopa. 
Baltimore orioles approach the bees on their food plants. If a bird perceives a female (armed with a sting) it veers away. If the bird sees a male (stingless) the oriole decapitates him and consumes his nectar. Shells on the ground show how successful the birds are at distinguishing the sexes. When a bird starts to prey on males near a nest aggregation, the males go in hiding and a female comes out and hovers like a male with a faux marking made of pollen on her face that makes her resemble a male. This teaches the birds not to attack males.
In light of all this it's reasonable to say that the males are guarding the nest. 
[Special:Contributions/68.37.247.85|68.37.247.85]] (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I have videotapes

message: I had thought that this bee was a woodcutter.  This image was gleaned from one of my amateurish videotapes that I made late in 2006 (probably in September).  I think that the creature has some golden hairs on its metathorax.  I assumed that it was a woodcutter gathering provisions for the hatchlings to grow on.  I was only in the act of trying out a camcorder, I was not attempting to identify the creature's species. The bee was wary of me and kept its distance from me. About ten feet (3 m) is as close as I could get to it.  PixOnTrax 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These photos show exactly what I was referring to: you are confusing several unrelated types of bee. The top photo is a female virginica, not a Megachile; the bottom photo is a dead bumblebee, and it could be perplexus, bimaculatus, or maybe even griseocollis (and none of which nest in wood). Dyanega 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ought to move on to some other subject.  At least I need to seek out a less controversial subject than these Eastern carpenter bees.  I have tossed bits of paper past a hovering bee and observed it chase after the paper for half a second.  I cannot be convinced that it was "attempting to mate" with birds, etc., though a bee will be distracted whenever a bird flies past. PixOnTrax 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First - there is nothing controversial about carpenter bees, you're simply confused, mostly because you do not know how to tell a carpenter bee from other kinds of bee. Second - Please read what I wrote. "They will fly after ANYTHING, because it could turn out to be either a female or a rival". No one EVER said that they attempt to mate with everything that flew past them, simply that they CHECK everything that flies past. If there was a dispenser in your home that released a tin can every hour, and most were empty but every now and then one contained a million dollars, and a few others contained time bombs, you would open every can, wouldn't you? It would not be in your self-interest to ignore them when some are possibly beneficial and others are possibly harmful. Third - the bee in the photo of a Megachile WAS a Megachile, a completely different bee from the ones in these photos. Just because ONE bee you took a photo of was a Megachile does not mean ALL of the bees you've ever taken photos of were Megachile. You simply need to learn how to tell the difference between a Xylocopa, a Megachile, and a Bombus, and things should start making more sense to you. Fourth - bumblebees frequently get into houses through open windows, doors, and especially when they nest underneath the home, or in an attic or garage. Bumblebees will make nests nearly anyplace a mouse will make a nest (they frequently use abandoned mouse nests, in fact). Is there a crawlspace underneath your home? If so, I'll bet there's a bumblebee nest there. Dyanega 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an image of the first evidence here in 2007; a snapshot taken on May 10, 2007, of a porch railing beneath a hibernaculum.PixOnTrax 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An image

message: I have removed a few ads for carpenter bee extermination. These guys seem to be advertising on WP and I have done the same in the carpenter bee articleJonRichfield (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam!

message: The strengths of this entry lie in its conciseness, broad coverage, and many images. Firstly, the entry is not extremely wordy, making it a manageable read. Moreover, the language used throughout the article is not overly technical or scientific. Secondly, the entry provides a suitable introduction to a wide variety of topics pertaining to carpenter bees including appearance, nesting habits, and typical behaviors. Finally, each section of the entry has at least one picture associated with the information in the entry. The images are informative and illustrative of the concept being presented. Most interesting to me, I learned that male carpenter bees are unable to sting, something that is very comforting to know.
	That being said, the article lacks specific information in the areas of development and reproduction, interaction with other species, and species aggression. Information on development and reproduction would be beneficial in explaining why carpenter bees behave in the ways that they do, especially in relation to how different genders behave. Information on interactions with other species would be beneficial in explaining carpenter bees’ relation to the animal kingdom. Information on species aggression would be beneficial in giving a clearer explanation the way that carpenter bees interact with other carpenter bees, especially when it comes to mating and defense of their nests.
	The classification of this entry as “start-class” is justified since the article lacks consistent citations. The classification of this entry as “low importance” is also justified since the entry only covers one specific species that falls under the greater genus Xylocopa. The discussion contains suggestions for citations and images that were used in the entry, both which enriched the entry greatly.
Mebennett49 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique for a class

message: This article is well put together. I have made a few changes to header ordering, grammar, and sentence structure. I also removed some incidences of non-neutral tone. A cursory review showed that there is a lot of existing primary literature for this bee, and many of its behaviors are well-studied and well-documented. To this end, I think it might be useful to expand on the number of references used. Additionally, this bee (and, actually, the genus Xylocopa in general) has been observed "robbing" plants of nectar. This is an interesting behavioral pattern which I think has been neglected thus far. I have added a short section that covers this, but it could do with serious expansion (more well documented cases exist!)Narayanan anagha (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique for Class 2

message: This article has a great deal of information and is organized nicely. I made a few changes to the grammar and sentence structure as there were words misspelled and some missing. I also added some hyperlinks to the genus article, and some mating behaviors. Moreover, I moved the section "stinging" from the "Human Importance" section to the "Defense" section because although the males bee of the species cannot sting, the information found in the section seemed to fit better under "defense" rather than "human importance" since the information included on stinging did not directly connect with impact on humans. Plus, the section ended with the fact that some of the bees can still sting in defense. Another comment I have on the article is that more information could be used in the Diet section. It was very sparse, and including certain species of flowers or plants that the species forages on can be useful 
Megxb (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments for Peer Review

message: To begin with, this is an excellent article. It is well written, organized, and detailed. However, I did find some grammatical mistakes that I fixed. They mainly had to do with misplaced commas. I also added hyperlinks to Ranunculaceae, Leguminosae, Wisteria, Apocynaceae, Plumbaginaceae, Labiatae, maxillae, and corolla. I also changed the capitalizations of the headings in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which says that only the first word of a heading should be capitalized. I would recommend expanding a bit more on the colony cycle section. 
Mohp7 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: I moved in early May to a town in west central Pennsylvania.  Around every wooden telephone- or electric pole in this town there orbited multiple pairs of vertically-related bees, always moving counterclockwise about the pole in a cohesive but ever-shifting swarm (much like a school of fish).  By month-end their visible numbers declined from up to a dozen pairs per pole to just occasional lone individuals, so I assume it is a seasonal (mating?) behavior.  I have never observed such behavior in Bumblebees or Carpenter Bees before and am puzzled to the point of distraction.  Were it not for their large size (45-50mm), barrel-like conformation and broad/transparent/compound wings, I'd be tempted to assume they are Carpenters. Now, the Wikipedia article on genus Bombus says species like pennsylvanicus can "detect both the presence and the pattern of electric fields on flowers, which occur due to atmospheric electricity", and so I wondered if they might be attracted & confused by the EM fields around these poles.  Unlikely, as these swarms show no attraction to metal poles of the same function.  And there is this: after the orbiting pairs disappeared in late May, I saw a lone individual (smaller by 5-10mm than those I'd seen -- female?) crawl into one of the many holes in a pole, so both Bumble and Carpenter seem to have strikes against them.
Anybody out there know if these strangely-behaving bees are Bombus or Xylocopa? Or for that matter, whether the orbiting "fish school" behavior is standard or anomalous?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.91.134 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbiting Pair-Swarms -- Carpenter or Bumble? 

message: It is notable that none of the North American entomological societies recognize the name "Eastern Carpenter Bee". This makes it inappropriate that the name keeps showing up. It really should not be included. The fact that some journal articles use it incorrectly does not make it appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.241.187 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not North American societies use a certain name or not has no prima facie impact on whether we use it in an article... we go by "most commonly used non-scientific name in English". Is there another one that you would claim holds that position? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, the official common name for this species used by the Entomological Society of America ("Carpenter bee") is the common name for the entire genus. As such, this particular species does not HAVE an "official common name" recognized by North American entomological societies that is distinct and unique. That alone shows that the "official" lists of common names are not the best sources of information regarding common names; the method by which species are given official common names is not open to public input, and many are the result of a single individual's personal preference. Dyanega (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Carpenter Bee is not an official name