# Native American Honey Bees



## Romahawk (Jul 11, 2005)

Here is an interesting little article that is contrary to everything I have read that said honeybees were not native to North America. It seems that there were native honeybees here long before our current breed of bees were imported from europe.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45857/title/Fossil_shows_first_all-American_honeybee


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Dee must be feeling pretty good right about now!  One of the few who have consistently held to the view that North America had native honeybees before the import of European bees. Great article!


----------



## G3farms (Jun 13, 2009)

I will alway believe that there were honey bees here also. There was just too much that needed to be pollinated to say otherwise. Granted there were not established beeks at that time period but robbing of honey from feral hives could have gone on. Mason bees and bumble bees don't have the mass numbers to cover all of the blooming things in North America.

Just my thinking, and anyway what do I know about such things.

G3


----------



## luvin honey (Jul 2, 2009)

Very cool!

I still see about 100 native pollinators for every honeybee from my 3 hives on my property, and that's not even including the nighttime pollinators. 

Long live the honeybee, but all my bee and flower watching this year have actually left me in awe of all the other native and bumble bees!


----------



## Josh Carmack (Dec 19, 2008)

While I won't argue that we didn't have native honey bees, I will argue that this jumbled squashed mess of a bee can be indicative of anything more than a squashed bug with a wing. I'm all behind science and the sorts, but something that really irritates me is how the scientific community will just accept things to be true, when these very same findings wouldn't hold up in court or any other type of real scrutiny. The guy sees a wing an a stinger, so it MUST be a honey bee. Do some DNA testing, check for similarities, and find another fossil that is actually recognizable, THEN declare there really was a honey bee here.

Again, I'm not arguing that we did or didn't have a native bee, I'm just bothered by the methods scientist use today.


----------



## frostygoat (Jun 3, 2008)

Unless you're an expert on fossil insects I don't see your complaint Josh. Engel is the world authority. If he says its a bee its a bee. He has dedicated his life to fossil insects and evolution and has written books on the topics (Evolution of the Insects by Grimaldi and Engel 2005). 

DNA cannot be taken from this fossil. Neanderthal DNA can be collected and sequenced because there are physical bones and they are much younger specimens.

If the results are published by the CA academy of sciences, they are thoroughly vetted. Journalists typically aren't science literate and neither is their audience so they often don't give a clear picture of the research they report on.

Check out the article itself there is a lot more to it than the pic in the media report:

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17598545/810934458/name/Apis+nearctica+2009.pdf


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

Josh Carmack said:


> I'm all behind science and the sorts, but something that really irritates me is how the scientific community will just accept things to be true, when these very same findings wouldn't hold up in court or any other type of real scrutiny. I'm just bothered by the methods scientist use today.





I am with you Josh... same thing with space clowns.... defining the universe and teh space time contiuim.... Who can argue your math is wrong...

But who cares?? so its a bee? no DNA, and it doesn't matter to anything today... so we give them more research dollars to tell us its been dead for a million years!, yikes.... makes working for a living seem like such a dumb idea!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

A lot of good prehistoric fossilized honey bees are to whether apis millifera type bees are native to North America. If there is any doubt whether LIVE apis mellifera existed in North America before 1609 I guess we will have to just continue to argue the point.

As to the idea that there were just too many plants here that needed pollination so honey bees must have existed here before Europeans brought them, I don't think that that sort of logic would hold up in a court of law. Besides, there are and were plenty of BEEs and other pollinators, just not Honey bees.


----------



## iwombat (Feb 3, 2009)

Josh, and gm. Did you read the 10 pages of systematic paleontology in the referenced paper, or just skim the news article?

I suggest you read it and site your specific complaints with the methodologies described.

I'm curious to know what, specifically, you find issue with.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Geographically speaking, where was this chunk of land where the fossil was found? Since, 14 million years ago it probably wasn't North America anyway.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> Dee must be feeling pretty good right about now!  One of the few who have consistently held to the view that North America had native honeybees before the import of European bees. Great article!


Isn't it her pov that there are Native Honeybees (apis mellifera) not that there were?


----------



## iwombat (Feb 3, 2009)

Middle Miocene, preserved in paper shale in Stewart Valley, NV


----------



## Josh Carmack (Dec 19, 2008)

iwombat said:


> Josh, and gm. Did you read the 10 pages of systematic paleontology in the referenced paper, or just skim the news article?
> 
> I suggest you read it and site your specific complaints with the methodologies described.
> 
> I'm curious to know what, specifically, you find issue with.


Well, no I didn't read the entire publication, but my point still stands in many corners. Rather it applies in totality to this particular situation doesn't negate my view in my opinion. I honestly believe the scientific community takes things for truth way to easily.


----------



## iwombat (Feb 3, 2009)

So, in other words, a generalized statement, unsupported by any specific examples to be taken as fact.

Isn't that what you're complaining about in the first place?


All that being said, I think it was Richard Feynman who said "Beware the high priests of science." And to a certain extent, you have to do some digging on your own to figure out what's what.


----------



## Josh Carmack (Dec 19, 2008)

Well, what I would suggest you do is find a little material on fact and opinion and research it, before you try and start an argument with someone who simply stated their OPINION all the while attempting to discredit them by pointing out that their statement is not based in fact when it was never based in fact. It was based in my opinion that the scientific community often takes too many "Discoveries" at face value rather than really investigating the origin. 
Now, i'm finished with this thred, I didn't even get on the net for this anyway, I'm trying to find me a new router..


----------



## USCBeeMan (Feb 7, 2009)

Honey Bee or not........what are the odds of making such a find????


----------



## iwombat (Feb 3, 2009)

I apologize if I have caused offense, and I certainly see where what I said could have caused it. It was not intended. What I saw was a generalized statement attempting to take issue with a decent piece of research w/o specific argument, and merely wanted to challenge that assertion. 

To a large extent the article is stated opinion as well. It's peer-reviewed, well cited, and well researched. But, essentially opinion at its core.


----------



## NewbeeNnc (May 21, 2009)

14 million years ago:scratch: I'm one of those carbon dating skeptics.


----------



## Ardilla (Jul 17, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Geographically speaking, where was this chunk of land where the fossil was found? Since, 14 million years ago it probably wasn't North America anyway.


14 million years ago isn't that long ago in terms of supercontinent cycles. The continents were in pretty much the same place. The Atlantic Ocean was slightly smaller and the Pacific Ocean was a little bigger.

Here is a map of the continents 30 million years ago:

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/30.htm?PHPSESSID=02a1a8119444b3ffacfc533d9825b3d0

Here is the present day using the same map projection:

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/0.htm?PHPSESSID=02a1a8119444b3ffacfc533d9825b3d0


----------



## Ardilla (Jul 17, 2006)

NewbeeNnc said:


> 14 million years ago:scratch: I'm one of those carbon dating skeptics.


That's o.k. Carbon dating only works going back 50,000 years or so. You have to use other nuclides like Argon-40 for this time scale.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Another application Carbon dating;
The Haraldskær Woman is an Iron Age bog body found naturally preserved in a bog in Jutland, Denmark. Labourers discovered the body in 1835 while excavating peat on the Haraldskær Estate. Disputes regarding the age and identity of this well-preserved body were settled in 1977, when *radiocarbon dating determined conclusively that her death occurred around the fifth century BC.[1]*
The body of the Haraldskær Woman was preserved due to the anaerobic conditions and acids of the peat bog in which she was found. Not only was the intact skeleton found, but also the skin and internal organs. This find was one of the earliest bog bodies to be studied by archaeologists.

Her body lies in state in an ornate glass-covered sarcophagus inside St. Nicolai Church in central Vejle, Denmark, where it is on permanent display
Ernie


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

USCBeeMan said:


> Honey Bee or not........what are the odds of making such a find????


Considering how rare fossils are to begin w/, pretty slim odds.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks Ardilla. Great illustrations.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

iwombat said:


> I apologize if I have caused offense, and I certainly see where what I said could have caused it. It was not intended. What I saw was a generalized statement attempting to take issue with a decent piece of research w/o specific argument, and merely wanted to challenge that assertion.
> 
> To a large extent the article is stated opinion as well. It's peer-reviewed, well cited, and well researched. But, essentially opinion at its core.




Understood your though wombat, no offense taken....


My point (obviously not clear) is even with the peer review its not worth a dime. It maens nothing to the real world, and could so easily be faked. Look up the Palomar hoax, or the cardiff man.... 

That said, what does it mean? like people defining the mountains on mars, it means nothing, and no one will argue with you until they have a better idea.... In the mean time the whole life is defining something that means nothing and noone cares about... yet someway or another we are paying for it....

Might as well be lazy and sit on the couch makeing babies for teh value it does society.

No mater what species of bee that is.. its dead and gone......

That was my point, not this particular guy or his methods... used to be interest in rocks was a hobby.... something you did in your spare time...... now its goverment funded....


----------



## justin (Jun 16, 2007)

i would say the reason it has meaning, or is considered a worthwhile discovery is...lots of people in america are somewhat self consious about the way their ancesters came to inhabit this great place and are also self concious about our relatively new place in this natural world. bieng of mostly dutch ancestry you can thank me (my heritage anyway) for dandilions and tulips, and people thinking it is reasonable to live below sea-level. bee keeping to me has a very close connection to nature, but there is an understanding that someone brought this "natural" occupation on a boat and introduced it into a world that was doing fine without it or me. if honey bees migrated to this continent on their own that would make the natural connection even stronger for people who think about that kind of thing. what did the honey bees we keep now look like compared to this bug around the same time period? justin


----------



## frostygoat (Jun 3, 2008)

gmcharlie said:


> Understood your though wombat, no offense taken....
> 
> 
> My point (obviously not clear) is even with the peer review its not worth a dime. It maens nothing to the real world, and could so easily be faked. Look up the Palomar hoax, or the cardiff man....
> ...


Actually it is pretty darned tough to get funding for research of this sort. 

Very few people manage it and those that do work a heck of a lot more than 9 to 5 and in most cases make less than Joe the Plumber. 

It is absolutely NOT sucking off the government tit as you imply. And it matters a great deal IMO to understand how our world came to bee.


----------



## Josh Carmack (Dec 19, 2008)

iwombat said:


> I apologize if I have caused offense, and I certainly see where what I said could have caused it. It was not intended. What I saw was a generalized statement attempting to take issue with a decent piece of research w/o specific argument, and merely wanted to challenge that assertion.


I tend to get offended easily sometimes, I knew I would only get more offended even if that wasn't your intent, so I ignored this thread until I was in better mood. Sorry to be so quick to snap.
If it consoles you any I was a little hot about having to drop a couple hundred bucks on a new router. Mine had just given up the magic smoke directly before I got on my computer to search out a good price on one.

I wasn't speaking so much about this instance as a generalization of any and most discoveries. Of course I have my religious faith and beliefs which very often conflict with many "Scientific" discoveries.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

Justin, the only place you will be thanked for bringing dandilions is on a bee website!.....:waiting:



Frosty, more than entitled to your opinion..... In a proper situation you woldn't have to pay all your money in taxes and you could DONATE your funds to these researchers....

Unfortunatly I (as one who doesn't give a rats behind) don't have a choice... so I pay to research space and Long dead bugs, instead of haveing extra money to give to St. Judes.......


As for the ease of getting funding... there is a scam too, most don't even do that, they hire Grant writers to do it for them.


----------



## Tihomir Mačkić (Jun 22, 2009)

I would like here to write something about Carniolan honey bee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carniolan_honey_bee
Here in the former Yugoslavian countries, this bees called "Kranjska bees", but the real name of this bees is actually "Krajnska bees" (the difference is only in place of letters "j"). 
Krajna is area where I live and here is a origin of this bees. Visit this page and see the pictures http://www.u-pcelara-maradik.org/77/biologija-pcela.html


----------



## Reid (Dec 3, 2008)

gmcharlie said:


> ...That was my point, not this particular guy or his methods... used to be interest in rocks was a hobby.... something you did in your spare time...... now its goverment funded....


The study of "rocks" is required to aquire pretty much all the natural resources we have and to protect what we built with them. Ignorance of "rocks", what they are made out of, and where they come from, and what alterations have occured to them since they were formed, equates to no understanding on how to find deposits of oil, coal, gas, metals, and other minerals that are required for modern society (glass, computers, cars, roads, etc., not to mention bee smokers, and honey extractors). Human society is significantly benifited by such scientific inquery, and thus it has been funded by public funds for thousands of years. (r


----------



## Ardilla (Jul 17, 2006)

gmcharlie said:


> used to be interest in rocks was a hobby.... something you did in your spare time...... *now its goverment funded...*.


I will second Reid and add:

Research in geology and paleontology has been funded by the U.S. government since 1879 when the U.S.G.S. was founded, and even earlier through indirect funding of land grant universities etc.

The percentage of GDP that goes to research and development has remained approximately 2.5% since the early 1960's. The federal contribution has *decreased* from its peak of 2% of GDP in the early 1960's (Apollo program started) to about 0.75% currently.

http://nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c4/fig04-05.htm


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

good point Adrillo. 2.5 % of GDP and what has been discovered? new metal? new energy??? 

Nothing... Nada... 2.5 for years. billions of doallars and we have a dead bee thats 3000 years old.... WOW.....

last major discovery was what 1830 or so???


Wasn't picking on geology per sea, but the policy of public funding for silly exploration.... Private funding is great... Museams, used to fund things like archology...... not any more.. now my grand kids will be working for it....

Just think Cash for clunkers means that each one of us just contributed 100.00 to someone else buying a new car!.....

instead of feel good politics, stop and think, How much cash would you personaly contribute to someone else who wants to look for old fossils?? Honestly ........


----------



## Runswithbees (Feb 1, 2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rJb9mnhWmws Go to 23:10 of this. It says the Mayans kept stinging honeybees as guards for their towns.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Romahawk said:


> Here is an interesting little article that is contrary to everything I have read that said honeybees were not native to North America. It seems that there were native honeybees here long before our current breed of bees were imported from europe.
> 
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45857/title/Fossil_shows_first_all-American_honeybee


Could you quote the article here for us non-members?


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

Too much close minded anger over the dumbest stuff around here sometimes. Too many beliefs and generalizations. Science is not respected any longer unless it supports certain beliefs in the process - or makes someone scads of money. People would rather be dumb and rich I guess, than to be a viable part of the world in general and thus advancing our civilization from the last vestiges of the fall of Rome - the never ending Dark Age we appear to be stuck in.

I would actually like to know more about these ancient American bees.

Here is a link to a similar article - if not the very same on a different site.

http://www.wvbeekeepers.org/North%20American%20Honeybee.pdf


----------



## Boomhawr (Jul 28, 2014)

Well, if it hasn't already been pointed out, north America had prehistoric horses here, then they died out. Later the Spaniards brought in the horses we see today. Maybe the same thing with the bees.


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

Boomhawr said:


> Well, if it hasn't already been pointed out, north America had prehistoric horses here, then they died out. Later the Spaniards brought in the horses we see today. Maybe the same thing with the bees.


Hehe - Same thing with the mastodon, wooly mammoth, giant sloth, giant tapir, saber tooth cat, saber tooth lion, dire wolf, giant bison, and it goes on. And I believe those about half of there were just some of the species that bones were found with 25 miles of here. Heck look at the number of species that disappeared in the last century including the passenger pigeon. It was likely the most numerous bird in North American 200 -250 years ago. Puff, gone. 

So BoomHawr is correct, just because a honey bee was here and now fossilized, doesn't mean it was here when the first honey bees were brought here. Or even worst, if it was even the same species. BIG difference between that current bison and the giant bison. Way different critters.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Other than argue just what that fossil was, how old it is, and when they died out, there is another argument.

I am absolutely positive, that had social honeybees existed in the US within the last few thousand years, the Indians would have had the smarts to use them, both as a wild food source or possibly even domesticated.

I base this on what other people around the world have done, from ancient Canaanites to Nepalese to African Pygmies, everybody in contact with honeybees has used them, all these people have used and to greater or lesser extent farmed honeybees, and I am sure Indian culture and knowledge has been more advanced than some of the other people. Yet there is no folklore, legends, or handed down knowledge, that Indians ever used honeybees. We hear a lot about Indians collection and use of maple syrup. But honey? Nothing.

Having said that, various types of social bees exist in South America, (and are used by the South American Indians), so it is entirely conceivable that at various times they existed in North America. But I cannot believe a useful species existed during times of Indian occupation and went completely unreported.

When the first white people arrived in my country, the indigenous Maori people had descriptions, stories, sayings, and even cultural practises based on species that had lived here, but gone extinct 500 years before Europeans arrived. Early white settlers were told about them and even the Maori names for them, More recently, fossils have been discovered, showing it was all true. See for example, Moa.

Why no such records in Indian lore?


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

Knocked it out of the park. :applause:


----------



## Colobee (May 15, 2014)

Did anyone else get a chuckle from the irony of this "fossil" of a thread being dug up? 

An educated guess here - there are probably more fossils in the earth than there are honey bees on it. A few billion years will do that. 

We're talking about a North American honeybee fossil from 14 million years ago. Orangutans were the closest things to humans back then. I'd be surprised to find that honeybees haven't come & gone a few times since then.


----------



## Boomhawr (Jul 28, 2014)

Yep. Fossils predate Native American "Indians". They were likely extinct before the native culture began.

Colobee, the reason I "dug up" this thread was I was Googling to find a bee fossil for sale. I figured, if I ever got to do or help in educational talks on bees, it would be neat to have 1 to show how long they've been around. A link popped up to this thread, so me being a forum member, I decided to post. But you're right, it is pretty funny.


----------



## Boomhawr (Jul 28, 2014)

I'm watching one on eBay. It's in amber. It says, large bee (a stingless bee probably from the tribe Meliponini, about the size of a honey bee) ".


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

just be aware some "fossils" in amber are not very old, and there is a market in artificially created fakes.


----------



## Boomhawr (Jul 28, 2014)

Hmmm. Thanks. How do you tell the difference?

And i haven't bid. Just watching it right now.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Don't know. I saw a thing on TV about it once, the fake fossil industry, in some countries such as Morocco there are whole chop shops making them, including fake certification. Even very authentic looking rock fossils, and got to say, the craftsmen were very skilled. It was not mass production, a man would work many days on one fossil but at the end it could go for hundreds of dollars when the guy doing it was paid a pittance. Excellent profits for the owner. But insects in amber are the easiest, amateur stuff. 

Could maybe ask the vendor what he knows?


----------



## Boomhawr (Jul 28, 2014)

http://m.ebay.com/itm/181715585924?nav=WATCHING_ACTIVE


----------



## Boomhawr (Jul 28, 2014)

Thanks. May ask him, but no way to know if he's a con or was coned himself.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Hmm interesting ad.

But when you get something like this

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Amber-...005&rk=3&rkt=6&mehot=pp&sd=191549196511&rt=nc

A claimed rare specimen fossil, that seems remarkably well presented and worked, for a big $7.95, one has to wonder.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

I would buy one of those if it had a honeybee in it for $7.95. That would be cooler and cheaper than the trinkets I buy when on vacation lol


----------



## Boomhawr (Jul 28, 2014)

Yes Oldtimer, exept if you look at "condition", it actually does say "New".


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK didn't read the whole thing.

The other ones it claims they come from a mine, so it could be feasible they keep an eye out for anything with insects in them and they are genuine fossils.


----------



## Steven Kluck (Mar 21, 2015)

Here in South Texas, it is accepted that the southernmost branch of the Comanche Indians were denominated by a word that meant "the honey-eaters." I had taken that to mean that they harvested the honey of the Mexican Honey Wasp (brachygastra mellifica,) which is native, but can't survive winters much north of here. But perhaps fossils can show if there were actual honeybees locally throughout those early times...


----------



## MikeinCarolina (Mar 9, 2014)

Boomhawr said:


> http://m.ebay.com/itm/181715585924?nav=WATCHING_ACTIVE


The beetle looks suspiciously like a small hive beetle.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Autonomous bands of Comanche people moved from the Wyoming region in early historic time (1680>1740). They displaced Apache (also migratory) in the Texas Hill country due to their mastery of the horse (introduced to the plains by Spanish). It is likely that the Comanche also encountered European bees living in the Texas Mesquite thickets from the same European introduction. Mesquite-Buffalo Jerky was a mainstay of the lower plains.

Exhaustive mitochondrial DNA studies have been done, and there is no-zero-nada evidence of the Lusby claims of North American nativity of honeybees. A fairy tale, as are many other fantastic and magical claims in that sphere of natural beekeeping. On the internet bee forums, you can make up stuff with impunity.

In my region, aboriginal people collected the honey dew that aphids produced on Carrizo reed and Pluchea (Arrow reed) that clogged the sandy dry stream courses. I have experimentally done the same to see what this sole Chumash sweetner was like. It was a major trade good for sugar-starved California Indians. If native honey bees existed, I very much doubt a widespread trading network of laboriously scraped and bitter tasting honeydew would have developed.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Colobee said:


> Did anyone else get a chuckle from the irony of this "fossil" of a thread being dug up?
> 
> An educated guess here - there are probably more fossils in the earth than there are honey bees on it. A few billion years will do that.
> 
> We're talking about a North American honeybee fossil from 14 million years ago. Orangutans were the closest things to humans back then. I'd be surprised to find that honeybees haven't come & gone a few times since then.


Another species present in North America back then were horses. Early relatives seem to date back to 35 MY or more here. They persisted up to about the time Native Americans arrived, roughly 13-14 thousand years ago. Not saying they hunted them, but it was a period of rapid climate change plus a new top predator, and a lot of species died out then. The shape of and connections between land masses tens of millions of years ago were vastly different from today, and the climate has changed radically many times in that period. If you go back far enough, my beloved old worn-out mountains, the Appalachians, were as tall as the Himalayas, the backbone of the super-continent Pangaea, and all land life was connected. 

By 14 MY ago, the continents were close to their present positions, although North and South America were not connected. An extinction then meant no land bridge was available, and insects with a colonial structure as complex as honeybees had little chance to cross oceans, so extinction was permanent until somebody carried them over.


----------



## Colobee (May 15, 2014)

Phoebee said:


> ...extinction was permanent until somebody carried them over.


somebody - less likely, or _something_.... 

14 million years is a lot of time to say that there is no possible way that the some sort of conditions or means of transport ever existed at any point, ever, in that time.

For one example - debris from the recent Japan Tsunami eventually made it to the Pacific Northwest coast. Although perhaps highly unlikely, it in not impossible to imagine that once, in 14 million years, a bee tree colony might have survived such a trip from the Asian to North American continents...

The shape & connections of land masses "back then" are nicely depicted in the link in post #19


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Other discussion:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-256722.html?


----------

