Talk:Characteristics of common wasps and bees
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
Characteristics of common wasps and bees is within the scope of WikiProject Beekeeping, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to beekeeping on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article and, if you wish, list yourself at our members list. Don't hesitate to ask questions! |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
| Comments | Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
Rename
The table is very easy to read, especially the merge part (COLSPAN) across different species. But the title is a bit verbose, perhaps Differences in the Apocrita or still a bit verbose, Differences between honeybee, wasp and hornet. --Menchi 21:38 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
What about guide to common wasps and bees, or just common wasps and bees?
We should make it clear how the word hornet is being used here. I use it the same way as the article, but some sources do otherwise, like the Audubon Guide to North American Insects and Spiders, which lists the main species of yellowjacket as the sandhills hornet. Also, are we sure wasp stings aren't allergens? The epipen mentions each of bees, wasps, yellowjackets, and hornets as possible causes of anaphylactic shock. Finally, what does it mean to say bumblebees are "dark"? The ones I have seen are yellow and black, sometimes with a red tail, but otherwise much like honeybees in colour though not form.
Is the thing you call a "Yellowjacket" the same one that is pictured at Corymbia ficifolia? Tannin
- It's awfully hard to tell without anything for scale in the picture, and not seeing the head very well, but I'd certainly call it either a yellowjacket or a hornet, leaning towards the former. I'm not sure just how the informal English-name taxonomy breaks down, but I think yellowjackets are considered more of a hornet than a wasp. (If there's ever an award on Wikipedia for gratuitous linking, I'm a shoe-in.) If you know you've seen that particular species yourself, can you tell whether the antennæ are blurred from motion, or are they fuzzy like they look? -- John Owens 08:39 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
I can't make out the picture either. What we call yellowjackets are wasps of the genus Vespula. Most are yellow and black, but one local species is black with ivory stripes, V. maculata. I imagine this, or close cousins of this, are what you mean by hornet in the table, and certainly this is how I have usually seen the term used (i.e. throughout much of Canada). However, in the Audubon Guide, V. maculata is called the Baldface Hornet and the yellow and black V. arenaria is called the Sandhills Hornet, and various webpages at least follow this usage instead. The word hornet is also used for some things which are not yellowjackets, such as Vespa spp., which are yellow and brown. I am giving you the species names so you can easily find images, since the wasp on Corymbia ficifolia is hard to make out.
And, btw, I have found that wasp stings can be allergens. I don't know the relative frequency relative to bee stings, or whether the effects occur in the same people, but this misinformation is potentially dangerous and so I am removing the "allergen" row from the article.
- I know baldface hornets quite well, and they definitely aren't what we call "hornets" around here. They're rather bigger and stockier, and less colorful, more pale on the light stripes, than the yellowjackets. Unfortunately (well, not really ;), they're the only real hornets I know firsthand. When I try to think what makes the difference between what I would call a hornet and what I would call a wasp, if I didn't know a particular species already, I think one of the main things that comes to mind is the slenderness of the wasps vs. the stockiness of the hornets' abdomens. That's hardly any kind of scientific classification, of course, but then, as far as I can tell, neither are "wasp" vs. "hornet", so it might be worth something. It kind of suffers from the "pornography definition" "I know it when I see it" kind of issue. (That's a reference to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so I don't know if that'll mean anything to you.) -- John Owens 20:39 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Ok. Obviously hornet means different things to different people in different parts of the world. As such, using the term as if it has a single meaning is only making things worse, and whoever wrote the article should replace it with a more specific term describing what they mean by it.
- For what it's worth, the Webster's 1913 definition does define a hornet as "a large, strong wasp", which works pretty well with my impression that they have stockier abdomens. I don't have any OED or other non-American dictionary at hand, though. But I think it shows we're onto something here. I think the kind of description you're talking about belongs more in the actual (as-yet-unwritten) hornet article, though; this page (at least as I see it) is more for the edification of the ignorant layman who sees a yellowjacket buzzing around his/her soda and shouts "Eek! A bee!", and should avoid that kind of detail. -- John Owens 06:52 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
But the point is there is no way to describe hornets on that level, because beyond "big wasp", the word doesn't have any single meaning. It doesn't do any good to tell people hornets are black with ivory stripes when a field guide will tell them hornets are yellow with brown stripes, or that they are yellow with brown stripes when another guide will tell them they are black with ivory stripes. If our goal is just a quick reference guide for the unacquainted, we should leave hornets out and instead put in things like hoverflies.
Some research into the matter finds out that I was wrong. Apparently there is such a thing as a "true hornet", corresponding to the genus Vespa and so excluding things like sandhills and baldface hornets despite their names. They can be distinguished from yellowjackets by, among other things, that the first section behind the wasp waist is rounded rather than flattened, which I think roughly corresponds to John's comment above. The only true hornet in North America is the introduced European or Giant hornet, Vespa crabro, which is easily distinguished by being yellow and brown.
What the article is discussing is fairly clearly the baldface hornet, which is commonly called a hornet thanks to its size and aggression, but doesn't match the sense above. So I am renaming the column, and I hope someone will add one for giant hornets later on (we don't have them this far north). I will also put some brief notes on the matter on hornet. My apologies for caused contention.
- Minor nitpick: Both the external link Ohio State University site, and my memory, give "Baldfaced hornet", with the 'd'. I'm going to be bold and put that right in. (Of course, once the article exists, I'm sure a redirect from baldface hornet would be an excellent idea.) -- John Owens 22:23 15 May 2003 (UTC)
For the record, while it's probably not worth mentioning in the article, using a rotten log with a yellowjacket nest in it as a jumping-off place from which I... I mean, from which one grabs an overhead grapevine to let one's 7-year-old imagination play Tarzan is NOT recommended. Not that I would know or anything. ;) -- Anon. (no, really!)
European Wasp
Vespula germanica.
OK, I went trawling through my offcuts looking for a picture of a European Wasp - possibly what is known as a "yellowjacket" in the US. This was a little difficult, seeing as what I was photographing at the time was a tree and its flowers, not the insects feeding on it. No matter, this one is a little fuzzy (the in-focus part of the picture is the bit I cropped out because it didn't have a wasp in it) but, if it is the right species, it is better than no picture at all. If it is the right species, go ahead and add it to the article. If not, spray the bastard - I hate them! Tannin 12:45 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, one of those links on the page calls one of the three varieties of yellowjackt mentioned Paravespula germanica, so I'd say we have a winner! (Slightly different taxonomic systems should hardly come as any great surprise by now. ;) And it looks about right to me, too, though of course the angle could be better.
- We've got a better picture of the honeybee on its way too, I'm waiting to see if Hfastedge wants to do it himself, or if I should shrink it down to size. -- John Owens 12:57 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
In general usage (at least according to the references I have), there are bees, ants and wasps in Apocrita. In otherwords, if it's not a bee or an ant, it's a wasp. Yellowjackets, hornets, paper wasps, etc are all subsets of the general term wasp. But I also know that there are several different technical taxonomies. I would recommend that we go with the general usage and footnote the technical taxonomy if appropriate.
In my part of the world (Ohio, US), the dominant bumblebees run to dark brown or black. They are visibly darker than all but a few breeds of honeybee. I may have overgeneralized that all bumblebees are dark...
Bumblebees are also (at least in my part of the world) stingerless. I have not dissected one, but I can say for certain that I've never been stung by one regardless of handling. Are you sure of your reference that bumblebees have stingers? Rossami 21:40 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
- The problem with this article is there are so many different species around the world. Are we sure all this applies to every species of wasp, bumblebee, etc? Evercat 21:43 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
- That's according to http://www.mearns.org.uk/mrssmith/bees/body.htm , the link I added to the bumblebee article, and my own background, though I must admit I've never been stung by one myself. But then, I've always known how to handle bees without pissing them off, after all. ;) -- John Owens 22:19 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Bumblebees have stingers, and can sting multiple times, supported by various sources. First hand, one stung my brother. It took a lot - he accidentally stepped on it. None of the bumblebees around here fit the description "dark", however, though their identification is certain.
When I first opened this page, I did it with a distinct agenda. I'm a hobbyist beekeeper and I'm tired of constantly defending my bees from an irrational fear of stinging. (I'm okay with a rational fear, but not an irrational one.) Wasps are far more common in my suburban neighborhood and, I suspect, most other places that humans live. Wasps are a lot more aggressive. To the best of my knowledge, the only person ever stung by my bees has been me - and that only when I did something stupid. I wanted to build a cheat sheet to help laypeople tell the difference.
Looking at some of the questions above, I'll now ask the group. Is this cheat sheet for lay people a worthy goal? Does it belong in Wikipedia? Obviously, I think this is a fact-based page and that it still fits the criteria of the neutral point of view. Do you agree? Rossami 15:10 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
- The page title sucks. But the entry has real value. It needs lots more work yet (and more illustrations), but the potential is there, Stay with it Rossami! Tannin
-
- I GIVE IN! Is this a better name?Rossami 22:37 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
- In case you can't tell by my earlier comment, uh... the 6:52 May 12 one, I'm with you on the cheat sheet idea, absolutely. I'm not a beekeeper myself, but my mom was and is, and I helped out with the hives a lot, and learned just about as much as she knew, while I was growing up. I got my share of bee stings, not only when I did something stupid - the time I stepped on one barefoot, that I can understand, but the time I got stung on the eyelid was just uncalled for. (They're attracted to bright, reflective eyes. Now that I think about it, I've no idea whether the moisture might attract them as well.) Being used to the occasional sting freaks people out a bit when I do things like smacking yellowjackets with my bare hands, BTW. ;) -- John Owens 19:05 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
I just had a thought. Since the worker bees can never reproduce, there's no direct evolutionary disadvantage to stinging, either, only that there's then one less worker to tend to the queen and the brood, etc. We might want to somehow alter that double-dagger paragraph accordingly; I'll think it over. -- John Owens 19:08 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
I think the easiest thing to do is to leave out the word evolutionary. Killing yourself in self-defense doesn't have any sort of advantage. I have made the change accordingly.
- Here's the thing: the stinger evolved to deal with other bees. A bee can sting as many other bees as she wants (assuming that they don't fight back and sting her, of course) without her stinger getting ripped out; this is quite useful when (raiding another hive)/(fending off hive raiders), or when a newly-hatched "princess" bee kills her unhatched rivals. The stinger slides in and out of the chitinous plates nice and easy. It's only when a bee stings an endoskeletal creature with skin that she dooms herself. DS 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Page needs work
I added a photo of polistes wasp, because I think that was in mind for the request. However all social wasps are paper wasps, so it's not a perfect fit. The chart needs some changes to reflect that, but I am lousy at charts and tables, so I hope there is a better volunteer. Also the position in the chart indicates paper wasps are feisty. Again that is quite relative. The ones that form large colonies like yellow jackets, sand hill wasps (also known as sand hill hornets) and bald faced hornets (also known as white faced hornets) tend to be quite feisty about protecting their homes. On the other hand, polistes wasps tend to be quite laid back and will only sting with quite a bit of provocation.
I replaced the bumblebee picture, because the one there was rather muddy (too dark for detail). I hate to do that to another photographer - didn't even look to see whose photo it was. I am sorry (whoever you are), but I looked at it several times and just finally decided it was needed. Pollinator 08:02, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Paper wasp describes all the social wasps, but it's also the common name for the genus Polistes. Kind of like how Red ant means Formica, although it includes many ants that are black and excludes most that are red. Please don't remove it.
[edit] Pictures need to be improved
I like this page very much, it is a helpful resource for lay people. As a hobby beekeeper I am frequently asked to identify stinging insects. But I do think the pictures, particularly of the yellow jacket and various wasps, can be improved. 69.19.14.41 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC) BerkeyDavid
[edit] Hornet (European hornet)
I added the Hornet (European hornet).Widefox 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sting Pain Index
I've added this, but it will be mainly of use when the bees are filled in. Currently I have no ref for that. I don't mind if someone wants to pull this line into this talk page if they object. Remember though, that the sting is a primary observable! Widefox 15:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Focus on observables
I've tried to emphasise the observables in the table, and de-emphasise the non-observables. The pain index may be the primary observation! (although admittedly more difficult to be objective) ...but in the scenario that a reader is stung, and they know it was more painful than a wasp or bee. Now this may help. They may never see the insect, or it was squashed, and now indistinguishable. It's other use is to clarify the hornet sting.Widefox 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'gentle' qualification
qualification of 'gentle', as done for honeybee. Important when describing these insects as gentle, that the hive/nest defence behaviour is mentioned to qualify their general behaviour. This is vital now that I've added the hornet, as a hive full can kill (of oriental species not the European hornet). I'm assuming that all these insects are aggressive defenders, so please correct that assumption if wrong. This row is therefore not in itself distinguishing, but vital to qualify. I experimented with the information outside of the table, or as a note, but didn't seem as clear. Widefox 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, all these insects are "aggressive" when defending their respective hives. Are there degrees of aggression? Again, yes. And honey bees are notably less aggressive even in hive defense than some of the other species selected for this comparison chart. That said, I think this line complicates the chart without adding anything useful. This is a chart to help people tell the difference between these specific species. We should not be wasting space and reader time on characteristics they all have in common. It complicates the chart to no good purpose. This chart is already getting quite hard to read. If anyone really wants to understand the full range of behaviors of the specific insect, the reader should follow the link at the top of the column and read the main article on the insect. Rossami (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the row name, "To humans / (hive defence)" causes the row to explode to 4 lines high yet none of the columns use that extra space. It makes the page longer than it needs to be and distracts the eye with unbalanced whitespace. "Behavior", on the other hand, is a short, succinct summary of the row's meaning and makes optimal use of the vertical space. It does widen the first column by a single character. But the real constraint on the table's width is not that column. If you are really concerned about the total table width, the problem is in the pictures. They are the constraint on the page's width. Rossami (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- You sir, seem to have a bee in your bonnet. Firstly, this isn't only about bees - you seem to be coming from a very bee direction, so I gently point out that this is all in the context of the new, extra hornet column, and hornet behaviour, as already stated. Some go from gentle to killer. I believe that should be indicated. Please can we focus on that primary topic, and leave the technicalities of the table as a secondary for now. You might have noticed I've made big improvements on rows and coalescing redundant adjacent boxes, all without feedback, so I think it's all going in the right direction with the table. And yes, as you might have guessed from my username, I understand the table. FYI I've already planned a big change in future, but not now. I also consider that considering the sweat bee is the most common (US), it should get a mention (according to the title, and not to visual disambiguation), but again, not for now. Widefox 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bald faced hornet
outtake, due to lack of satisfactory videos. [1] Widefox 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bumblebee outtake
this video is arguably better, but they've requested no embedding, so I will not link to it. [2] (from before) Widefox 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Legs
legs section - we should either provide differentiating information, or coalesce. For now I've done the latter - please add in any differences! here's the removed redundant text <td>long. no pollen baskets</td> <td>long, visible</td> <td>long, visible</td> (from before) Widefox 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AHB
Revision as of 03:17, 16 October 2006 (edit) Rossami (Talk | contribs) (Every assertion in th paragraph is cited in the parent articles Honey bee or Africanized honey bee. As to "the sting is the same", of course it is. Who holds this "common misconception"?)
- Q: "killer bee" "common misconception"?
- A: I would say anyone who watches television! Widefox 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So, yes I did intentionally revert that too, unfortunately. But you know my view on disambiguating AHB from another page today, so I don't understand why you'd be surprised by that. AHB has high negative (incorrect) profile, as does hornet. We're here to set the story straight. If I understand your viewpoint, you just wish to be more minimalist with what's implicitly true. I see the value in this case of the opposite. Have you seen reporting on AHB - including the term "killer bees!". Don't you think that we should say that they have the same sting as those "non killer bees"? Correct academic prose must be tempered by pragmatism, wouldn't you say? Widefox 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I do not. I believe strongly in the principle embodied in the essay WP:BEANS - if you don't mention it, the distinction won't occur to most people. By including the line, you will actually create a perception of difference where none exists and increase rather than decrease the confusion of the average reader. Even those whose only knowledge about "killer" bees comes from sensationalist TV knows that the term comes from the number of stings. Your intent is good but in this case, I believe that it will backfire. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we 'aint here to talk about me, but thanks. You are ignoring the elephant in the room. or should I say killer bee in the room. To use your mantra "they have beans up their noses!" (if I ever get found out that I'm writing this, please let this line be called "elephants, bees and beans!") Widefox 02:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Even those whose only knowledge about "killer" bees comes from sensationalist TV knows that the term comes from the number of stings." do you have any reason to believe this? if you are right (and I don't know how you'd prove that claim) then it may not need disambiguating. Widefox 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I caught a paper wasp nearly dead from the winter cold. Put him in a jar with leaves and honey. I wasn't sure from Wikepedia and other internet sources if he was a honey bee or not. When I saw his mouth parts clearly designed to chew leaves it was obvious he was a paper wasp. There were jaw devices that came out of his mouth to bite off leaves. A honey bee wouldnt have these. Try for pictures of these in article. (have to be in a jar to get that close up)
