Talk:Stingless bee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

I think this article should be upgraded in importance. Bendž|Ť 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Agriculture
Agropedia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Beekeeping task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
To-do list for Stingless bee: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • organization
  • copyediting for flow
  • references needed

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)

This article needs a picture. Cute 1 4 u

[edit] Evolutionary context

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

[edit] 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 Nomenclature changes frequently in entomology, and I'm suggesting the textbook is out of date in this respect and that Schwarziana should be used, unless there is an even more recent name change.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Actually, no - the fact is that the authors used outdated resources for the name of the species; Michener's is the most recent classification of Meliponines in print, unless you are aware of a publication that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)

[edit] 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)