Highland black bees not wild enough to be saved

[Hivemaker.]

>The case for a reserve on Colonsay is clear.

As stated by Gavin,and i totally agree,does not matter if the bee's temper and habits are good bad or indifferent, if they have remained isolated and are unique,then its not really much to ask for to keep them this way.

The next virus we may be getting if its not already here could be IAPV, when the Aussie queens start arriving.

 

[Norton]

Your personal view is that mainland Scottish native bees that have been on a Hebridean island for three decades shouldn't be moved back to the mainland yet Cypriot Buckfast are fine for this purpose? How come?!

Gavin, you misunderstood the meaning. I didn't say that they should or should not be moved anywhere - I meant that they should remain isolated and by this I mean that other bees should not be allowed onto the island.
I also think that you misunderstand totally the thinking behind Buckfast breeding - if a population of bees is pure and has some desirable traits then we are interested in getting genetic material to include in our lines to try to fix those traits. If these bees are special, then I support 100% the efforts to preserve them. Merely saying that they are hardy and work in the rain is not enough - you need more than that. Our bees work in low temperatures (as low as 7C) and do not have a problem with light rain even though generalizations have been made in the past to the contrary about imported strains.
I dislike the use of your term "Rubbish".
How do you that the population doesn't have Nosema ceranae? Have you checked it youyrself or are you just making a guess? The difference between N. ceranae and apis was only realized about a decade ago. When old samples of 30 years ago are checked some have N. ceranae - clearly a case of the two species being present in the past and explains why N. ceranae is found in many bee populations including ones that have not had any imports.
If the Colonsay bees really do not have any Varroa then surely this can be used to prevent any movement of bees from the mainland.
Norton.

 

[PaleoPerson]

I have looked into this issue a bit deeper in order to understand what is actually being said, and this is what I have found so far:

The problem starts with the name Apis mellifera mellifera (Linnaeus, 1758), the very name tells us that it is a sub species.

Linnaeus appears to describe Apis mellifera in 1758 (http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/title/b12066783#600 page 578) and that later authors have then described various sub species.

Looking at the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3148 it states
"Protection of Wildlife

Part 3 and Schedule 6 of the Act make amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, strengthening the legal protection for threatened species." I think the key word here is species. What we are trying to protect is a sub-species.

So what is being said is "we [JNCC] want to protect [pure] species in their natural environments and maintain biodiversity"

We fall foul of that test by:
1/ It is not a full species
2/ There is no biodiversity, the bees are kept in man made containers with various treatments to eradicate or hinder any other wildlife (Varroa, woodpeckers, mice etc..) that want to interact with them.

Now if there were feral colonies.
Designate the area an SSSI
You would need a license to handle or keep the same species or more than likely banned from keeping them at all.

I feel that the only time (under current legislation) that any grounds would be made is if it could be determined that this type of bee is a species in its own right and described under ICZN rules. Then there may be room to negotiate.

Now it may be that Apis mellifera mellifera is indeed the true Apis mellifera as this was described by Carl Linnaeus when he was working and living within the understood range of todays AMM, so it could be argued that it is really AM and NOT AMM and everything else is a subspecies. But my understading of Italian is nil, so someone will have to do the work starting with translating his original paper (http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/title/b12066783#600 page 578) and then find the paper that describes AMM and that will tell you what AMM really is.

SICAMM http://www.sicamm.org/WhatApis.html give a good description of what AMM really is as far as basic taxonomy.

Sorry Guys, war and peace from me, that's rare, but I am off sick and bored.

 

[PaleoPerson]

Oh, and as a footnote, I agree with the concept of keeping this breeding population as pure as it currently is.

 

[Finman]

here is different map. SICAMM's map is not true. This German map is clearly better.

According DNA mapping black bee came later to Europe than other races. Their birth place is in Africa and black bee came in second wave via Spain.

 

[Poly Hive]

Where they came from is academic really, whether first wave or 2nd or from where ever, it is the fact that they have been relatively isolated and yes they did get some Maud input from B. Mobus.

More to the point they are well adapted to their local climate and work well for the beekeeper lucky enough to have them. If the Scottish gov is being short sighted then what is new about Governments in general? And what do they best respond to? Bad publicity.

PH

 

[PaleoPerson]

here is different map. SICAMM's map is not true. This German map is clearly better.

According DNA mapping black bee came later to Europe than other races. Their birth place is in Africa and black bee came in second wave via Spain.
[/img]

Ah yes, but when was it where? and what did Linnaeus use as his type?

Where and when it came from are largely irrelevant. It is what material was used for the type description when erecting the species followed by subsequent revisions that counts.

 

[Finman]

.
I searched a long time these articles.

Origin of honeybees

"Every honey bee alive today had a common ancestor in Africa" is one conclusion drawn by a team of scientists that probed the origin of the species and the movements of introduced populations, including African "killer" bees in the New World.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061025181534.htm

 

[Finman]

Where and when it came from are largely irrelevant. .

When you have involved to "pure original mellifera mellifera (Linnaeus)" with hobbiest knowledge, don't use irrelevant word.

As I read "when", it was alt least 30 years ago.

I only point that Black mellifera does not live in Finnish or Russian tundra. --- when you use information sources.

 

[PaleoPerson]

Where they came from is academic really, whether first wave or 2nd or from where ever, it is the fact that they have been relatively isolated and yes they did get some Maud input from B. Mobus (hybridised).

More to the point they are well adapted to their local climate (ecotype) and work well for the beekeeper lucky enough to have them (semi-domesticated). If the Scottish gov is being short sighted then what is new about Governments in general? And what do they best respond to? Bad publicity.

PH

I think you may be missing the point PH.

What you have actually said is that a semi-domesticated, hybridised, ecotype that is probably only suitable for being used on one Island (your words) be given the same status as a full species when it comes to wildlife protection.

Get it to full species status or change the criteria then it can go somewhere, until then, it is still just another local mongrel - sorry, sub species, race, ssp. subsp. Which the wildlife act does not protect.

I reiterate my support for keeping this strain viable.

 

[PaleoPerson]

When you have involved to "pure original mellifera mellifera (Linnaeus)" with hobbiest knowledge, don't use irrelevant word.

As I read "when", it was alt least 30 years ago.

I only point that Black mellifera does not live in Finnish or Russian tundra. --- when you use information sources.

Finman, I will let you have that one. The point I was making was that the naming of a species is normally taken from one Holotype with a few other types possibly being included (para types, lecto types etc). This is the document that defines what something is. I was only referring to the point that Carl Linnaeus possibly described the bees as AM from the Netherlands or possibly Sweden

In order to see what AMM really is, look at the original description. To date, I have not been able to find it. The link I gave was for AM and this has been subsequently updated by other authors. Does anyone have the details?

 

[Norton]

Hello,
The original description is probably in Systema Naturae. I doubt whether it will be very detailed as there was no need to describe how this bee was different from other ssp. There is probably a plate and maybe a locality mentioned. But were types designated then? I don't think so. Try looking up the book online - maybe it exists.
Best regards
Norton.

 

[PaleoPerson]

Hello,
The original description is probably in Systema Naturae. I doubt whether it will be very detailed as there was no need to describe how this bee was different from other ssp. There is probably a plate and maybe a locality mentioned. But were types designated then? I don't think so. Try looking up the book online - maybe it exists.
Best regards
Norton.

The link to this is in my first post. It is the papers that cover the re-evaluation and the ssp naming that will hold the most information.

 

[Norton]

Hello,
I think that most of us know what is AMM and what is not. I cannot see how later descriptions can be definitive on it. Many of the descriptions of other ssp, even quite recent ones, are scanty to say the least.
For example we actually know what Apis mellifera cypria is. There appear to have been two types on the island 150 years ago. A dark variety occurring in the mountains that was docile and a yellow one in the lowlands that was aggressive. The dark one has disappeared.
Best regards
Norton

 

[PaleoPerson]

Hello,
I think that most of us know what is AMM and what is not. I cannot see how later descriptions can be definitive on it. Many of the descriptions of other ssp, even quite recent ones, are scanty to say the least.
For example we actually know what Apis mellifera cypria is. There appear to have been two types on the island 150 years ago. A dark variety occurring in the mountains that was docile and a yellow one in the lowlands that was aggressive. The dark one has disappeared.
Best regards
Norton

OK, I hear a common theme going on here.

I have spent the last 20 years involved in Taxonomy, It does not matter what any individual thinks. The definitive description of any species in the animal kingdom is the one that was published according to the ICZN rules.

Many times in other hobbies I have heard "oh that is a xyz" and have believed them, but it is only when you reference the original manuscript that details what xyz is that you realise that they were wrong.

So far, all I have heard is rumour and conjecture as to what AMM is without anyone being able to point me to the scientific document that describes AMM. Publications by the well regarded associations or individuals are meaningless without correct references as the facts cannot be corroborated.

The comment "I think that most of us know what is AMM" is an assumption backed by nothing. There is every possibility that you are correct on what AMM is, but there is also the possibility you may not be.

There is a possibility that Linnaeus erected the AMM ssp. in a later works.

 

[Finman]

.
Perhaps Linnaeus has possibility to meet quite original A. mellifera mellifera.

After his death loose frames was taken into use and queen breeding/selection was possible. After 1950 artificial insemination tools have had great importance.

I would say that honey bee is not the same as domestic bee as it was 250 years ago.

German Black bee has been imported to many continents but they are not there favorit there any more.

 

[PaleoPerson]

Hello,

For example we actually know what Apis mellifera cypria is. There appear to have been two types on the island 150 years ago. A dark variety occurring in the mountains that was docile and a yellow one in the lowlands that was aggressive. The dark one has disappeared.
Best regards
Norton

The above explains what I am saying:

"we actually know what Apis mellifera cypria is." please send me a link to the paper describing it I would like to know more.

"There appear to have been two types on the island 150 years ago"
There cannot be two types of the same thing. One will be correct, the other will be a variation, aberration (both unlikely in high numbers) or a different species/sub species.

It would appear from the naming convetion ie. Apis= Bee, Mellifera=Honey bearing, cypria=from Cyprus .
A honey bearing Bee from Cyprus covers both types when from your description you should have/had 2 ssp.

 

[PaleoPerson]

.
Perhaps Linnaeus has possibility to meet quite original A. mellifera mellifera.

After his death loose frames was taken into use and queen breeding/selection was possible. After 1950 artificial insemination tools have had great importance.

I would say that honey bee is not the same as domestic bee as it was 250 years ago.

German Black bee has been imported to many continents but they are not there favorit there any more.

Spot on, but the fact he named it changes the possibility to a certainty.

Just to complicate matters, Linnaeus housed his holotypes in a museum. they may still be available (I very much doubt it though). If however they did exist, then they could be DNA tested.

His collection is housed in London and was combined with Sir James Edward Smith in 1784. The collection is currently housed in the Linnean Society of London collections.

 

[Norton]

The Code - ICZN

Hello,
I well aware of The Code of the ICZN. I have described new species, subspecies, forms and aberrations in scientific journals.
If you think that the type specimen(s) do not exist and that what we all take to be AMM might in fact be something else, then why don't you do something about it and designate a neotype specimen from present day AMM. I think that as Linnaeus was trying to apply some sort of order to the natural world around him that it is very logical that he would name specimens found in the immediate neighbourhood, in this case it was Sweden, which as we again all know is within the range of AMM.
Best regards
Norton
(Cyprus: where it was 0C last night, struggled to reach double figures during the day and 3C tonight with widespread frost).

 

[PaleoPerson]

Ok, I think I will try to stop posting after this one.

I do not intend to get involved in taxonomy to the extent of publications in the bee-keeping world as I am involved enough with it in other areas (visits to museums over next month to check type specimens).

For me the outstanding questions would be:

If Carl Linnaeus named A. mellifera, who named A. mellifera mellifera?
Where is the paper?
Does the Holotype of A.mellifera exist in his collections in London?

For me the answers would be interesting, but could make the start of a very good paper for someone else.