# Why do Male Drones Bees Die after mating mating



## chiefman (May 18, 2003)

This may be more of a entomology and evolution question, which I cannot seem to find an answer to. Why do Male Drones Bees Die after mating mating ?

From Wikipedia:
The bulb of the endophallus is broken off inside of the queen during mating—so drones only mate once, and die shortly after. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_(bee) section: Mating and the drone reproductive organ.

It is quite obvious that the reason for their death is due to a large part of their organs being damaged and removed. I don't understand why they "nature" designed the drones to die after mating. Would it not be better as in other animals to keep that genetic trait and pass it on to as many other queens as possible ?


----------



## cnt (Jun 8, 2013)

There are way way more drones than queens. The odds of even mating once is pretty low let alone twice. The Queen mates with 10-20 drones so strategically you want to be the father of the next Queen. The best way to do that is to get more sperm in there than the next drone. The best strategy nature figured out to do that is, well you know the rest.


----------



## chiefman (May 18, 2003)

cnt said:


> There are way way more drones than queens. The odds of even mating once is pretty low let alone twice. The Queen mates with 10-20 drones so strategically you want to be the father of the next Queen. The best way to do that is to get more sperm in there than the next drone. The best strategy nature figured out to do that is, well you know the rest.


Thanks some of that makes sense but it still does not answer the question. 

>>"There are way way more drones than queens.The odds of even mating once is pretty low let alone twice."
This is true but if the BEST drones survived a mating would not evolution keep these traits to mate again and reduce the the drone population to the best traits in these drones.

>> The Queen mates with 10-20 drones so strategically you want to be the father of the next Queen. 
Great so now go mate with some more queens as this drone obviously has what it take to do a successful mate 

>> The best way to do that is to get more sperm in there than the next drone.
Wolves and dogs do that by locking things up for a while ensuring there are not rivals mating as well. The Male The plug the male bees leave will not prevent the next drone from mating with the same queen,


----------



## Colino (May 28, 2013)

chiefman said:


> Thanks some of that makes sense but it still does not answer the question.
> 
> >>"There are way way more drones than queens.The odds of even mating once is pretty low let alone twice."
> This is true but if the BEST drones survived a mating would not evolution keep these traits to mate again and reduce the the drone population to the best traits in these drones.
> ...


Bees do not reproduce like mammals, think more like how an apple tree reproduces. Watch this video of a lecture given by Jamie Ellis given at the National Honey Show. https://youtu.be/PqoZvVu1E7s


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Drones are almost like flying sperm cells, and for any individual getting to mate even once is so unlikely that it's almost like winning powerball. The statistical probability that it would *ever* happen again is extremely low. When you also factor in their very short reproductive life span mating is a one shot thing. Anything which results in depositing even a little more sperm when a mating does happen is an evolutionary advantage. 

So the simple answer is that drones which commit more fully are more competitive than those that hold out for another chance to mate later, because that chance is *very* unlikely to ever happen for the drone - unlike the wolf.

However I just made that up.


----------



## jrbbees (Apr 4, 2010)

When they mate their "penis" is ripped out of their body and they fall to earth.
That is why they die after mating.
Then the queen "ejects" it to make way for the next male.

Just like when the worker stings.


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

Drones die happily after mating, This is much preferred over being tossed out in the cold to freeze to death at the onset of winter. They also thank their creator that they are not male Praying Mantises'. Who will be devoured by their mate.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

There is a National Honey Show lecture (on YouTube) about DCAs and mating. Focusing on how honey bees are set up to avoid inbreeding "by design". Anyway, it's an interesting thing to watch.

She (the lecturer) said that since the odds are so low to mate once, that the male has evolved into making it his goal to try to produce as many offspring as possible and that statistically happens by him giving every one of his sperm when the opportunity presents itself instead of trying to split it over multiple matings.


----------



## michkel (Dec 1, 2012)

Tenbears said:


> Drones die happily after mating, This is much preferred over being tossed out in the cold to freeze to death at the onset of winter. They also thank their creator that they are not male Praying Mantises'. Who will be devoured by their mate.


Or a black widow male.


----------



## Hops Brewster (Jun 17, 2014)

It is known that drones consume a large quantity of food (much more than any individual worker) while in the hive but do not contribute any resources. Their sole purpose to the species is to mate the queens. Once that mission is accomplished there is no longer any purpose for the drone to continue consuming the resources of the hive. It must cease to exist in the best interest of the colony. Therefore, mating is a suicide mission, mating in the best interest of perpetuating the species, and dying in the survival of the colony.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

chiefman said:


> Would it not be better as in other animals to keep that genetic trait and pass it on to as many other queens as possible ?


What if the genes passed on were not so good for survival? It is better for insects to mix them up I would say base on how well it has worked for them.


----------



## michkel (Dec 1, 2012)

Hops Brewster said:


> It is known that drones consume a large quantity of food (much more than any individual worker) while in the hive but do not contribute any resources. Their sole purpose to the species is to mate the queens. Once that mission is accomplished there is no longer any purpose for the drone to continue consuming the resources of the hive. It must cease to exist in the best interest of the colony. Therefore, mating is a suicide mission, mating in the best interest of perpetuating the species, and dying in the survival of the colony.


This makes the most sense to me.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Honey bees are very sensitive to inbreeding and the drone never mating again , along with queens mating at a distance from their own hive are ways nature prevents damage to the species.


----------



## ChuckReburn (Dec 17, 2013)

There is no "best drone" rather there is a best queen and she asserts her presence by putting out MORE drones. A drone is haploid, having only one set of chromosomes from the queen. An incomplete organism - it's basically a flying sperm cell. There is no advantage to having the “spent” drone return to the hive, replenish itself and return to the DCA for another go at it – it is far easier to allow all of the energy to be spent on the mating ritual and send out more drones with the exact same genetic encoding.
The thought that the first drone to mate is somehow superior or the” best” is flawed. Quite likely it was the one most proximate to the virgin queen when she entered the DCA. Highly productive and successful queens lead colonies which produce more drones – these genetics make up a higher proportion of the encounters within a DCA. A single drone can make a contribution which fills the spermatheca, yet the queen (and workers) seek multiple matings – genetic diversity is desired. 
The whole design seeks to offset the first chance encounter with a fry cook with a dozen matings with top gun pilots.


----------



## NatalieC (May 26, 2015)

i really dont know do they get stinged!!!!!!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Although all sperm from a specific drone is identical to all the other sperm from the same drone, the drones from a given queen are not identical to one another.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

deknow said:


> Although all sperm from a specific drone is identical to all the other sperm from the same drone, the drones from a given queen are not identical to one another.


That's what I thought, I have drones of about 5 different colors in one of my hives. All black, all "golden", striped, and half/half (some with black butts and gold middles some opposite).


----------



## ChuckReburn (Dec 17, 2013)

deknow said:


> Although all sperm from a specific drone is identical to all the other sperm from the same drone, the drones from a given queen are not identical to one another.


Yeah, they get a random half = 16 of the queens 32 chromosomes so (discounting any genetic defects), the drone contribution from a colony would have 2 distinct genetic variants.



jwcarlson said:


> That's what I thought, I have drones of about 5 different colors in one of my hives. All black, all "golden", striped, and half/half (some with black butts and gold middles some opposite).


Drones wander from hive to hive, we run mutts but when we had a colony of Italians in the mix, those blonde drones were in every hive.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

No. as you correctly stated, it is a random half.

That begins with a random selection of one chromosome from each pair, then add in crossovers and other variances, and you have enough variation that for all practical purposes, every drone is distinct.

It is not correct to say there are 2 variants.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

ChuckReburn said:


> Yeah, they get a random half = 16 of the queens 32 chromosomes so (discounting any genetic defects), the drone contribution from a colony would have 2 distinct genetic variants.
> 
> 
> 
> Drones wander from hive to hive, we run mutts but when we had a colony of Italians in the mix, those blonde drones were in every hive.


It's a random combination, so there are many more than two variants.
Yes, I know they drift.


----------



## beekeeper79 (Jun 24, 2013)

michkel said:


> This makes the most sense to me.


Agreed. It would seem that way back in the bee ancestral tree that drones perhaps survived mating, but would then put additional strain on the hive's resources (either heading into winter or long term) upon return. Queens/colonies with drones that either died or could not return after mating would be better equipped (more resources) to survive the winter (or longterm) and thus pass on those "mate-once" genetics to the next wave of drones the following spring. I would imagine over time that queens who made drones that could mate multiple times would be selected against as their hives were weaker, leading up to today's queens who make drones that can only mate once. Just a guess.


-bk79


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I don't think I can buy that as stated. If every queen mates with 30 drones, and each colony is presumably headed by 1 or 2 queens, then 60 drones with a post coital appetite would seem to me to be down in the noise as far as impact on the colony.


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

Evolutionary selection doesn't have to make sense. Negative traits traits can develop and survive while improvements are lost just due to plain old dumb luck.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

deknow said:


> I don't think I can buy that as stated. If every queen mates with 30 drones, and each colony is presumably headed by 1 or 2 queens, then 60 drones with a post coital appetite would seem to me to be down in the noise as far as impact on the colony.


Yes. The number of drones who "commit suicide" during breeding are insignificant compared to the number of drones which never mate. More drones probably get eaten by birds. I doubt that the death of the drone is the adaptation - but rather the 100% commitment to getting as much genetic material back into the gene pool (via the queen of course) as possible.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

maudbid said:


> Evolutionary selection doesn't have to make sense. Negative traits traits can develop and survive while improvements are lost just due to plain old dumb luck.


Do you have an example of that? I think you can explain every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations which improved competitiveness. Environmental and ecological conditions can change rendering adaptations less effective, but at the time that they occurred they were advantageous.

If you have an example of something which is not like that I would like to hear it.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

David LaFerney said:


> Do you have an example of that? I think you can explain every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations which improved competitiveness. Environmental and ecological conditions can change rendering adaptations less effective, but at the time that they occurred they were advantageous.
> 
> If you have an example of something which is not like that I would like to hear it.


albino is a recessive trait in whitetail deer, it provides no advantages what so ever so why did they ever develop that trait to begin with?


----------



## Matt F (Oct 7, 2014)

David LaFerney said:


> Do you have an example of that? I think you can explain every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations which improved competitiveness. Environmental and ecological conditions can change rendering adaptations less effective, but at the time that they occurred they were advantageous.
> 
> If you have an example of something which is not like that I would like to hear it.


There are lots of them. Any trait that is distinctly different but doesn't hinder competitiveness will propagate. How about eye color? Your appendix? Male nipples?


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

David LaFerney said:


> I think you can explain every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations which improved competitiveness.


This is a very common misunderstanding about natural selection, that it is a method for continuing advancement of a species. Where in fact, the process just takes advantage of random variations in the population of a species. There is absolutely no gaurantee that of two variations, only the best will survive to pass along its traits, or that less worthy traits won't get passed along. While some traits make sense in clearly providing an advantage, most traits are not so clear cut. And a clear cut advantage could be eliminated through luck, such as a bird eating the best drone able to survive and advance the species. 

The examples are numerous around us. Take a look at species which are so specialized that the slightest change in their environment results in a dead end for that evolutionary chain. Why would the current panda be a more competetive selection over a panda which could eat bamboo and other plants? Possibly that other form of panda (assuming one ever existed) was killed prematurely due to an accidental death?

However, it is not completely random either. While selection between variations does not gaurantee survival/death, most variations do tend to slightly change the odds, Thus, in the end a species does tend to improve due to favorable odds slightly tipping the balance.

There are also variations which do not matter one way or the other in improving the species, or a negative occurs in such a way as to not impact the selection process. An example of this would be the gene based cause of breast cancer. While it makes life miserable for the individual, it tends to strike late enough in life that the chance of breeding and spreading this gene is not reduced thus the population continues to carry this gene. This death after mating of a drone could be one of those.

There is no intelligence or goal guiding evolution. We can wave our hands all we want, but it does nothing to definitively answer the question posted by the OP. It does make for interesting conversation though.


----------



## IAmTheWaterbug (Jun 4, 2014)

ChuckReburn said:


> The whole design seeks to offset the first chance encounter with a fry cook with a dozen matings with top gun pilots.


Every drone thinks he's top gun pilot. Little does he know he's actually a kamikaze pilot.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Harley Craig said:


> albino is a recessive trait in whitetail deer, it provides no advantages what so ever so why did they ever develop that trait to begin with?


Notice that I said dominant and many recessive traits. Albinism is a recessive, and therefore can be passed on without expression - so it can continue to be passed along despite being a mal-adaptation.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Matt F said:


> How about eye color? Your appendix? Male nipples?


Eye color? I don't know - maybe variety in eye color results in more successful mating behavior. Dark eyes may be an adaptation to bright sunlight while light color may be a recessive. Just guessing.

The appendix is being reconsidered - it might be a repository for beneficial gut bacteria - and thus a beneficial adaptation even now. Vestigial body structures may have lost their original purpose, but that doesn't mean that they never had one. 

Male nipples - nipples are obviously an adaptation of mammals to feed offspring. The reason that both males and females have them is that male and female bodies are pretty much identical in structure other than developmental differences. All of the female parts have male analogs and vice versa.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

maudbid said:


> This is a very common misunderstanding about natural selection, that it is a method for continuing advancement of a species.


That may be a true statement, but it isn't what I said. Adaptations by means of evolution *result* in competitive advantages. Those changes which result in diminished competitiveness generally die out if they are dominant, although they can persist if they are recessives which can be masked by the advantageous trait.


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

David LaFerney said:


> That may be a true statement, but it isn't what I said. Adaptations by means of evolution *result* in competitive advantages. Those changes which result in diminished competitiveness generally die out if they are dominant, although they can persist if they are recessives which can be masked by the advantageous trait.


No, what you said originally was "I think you can explain every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations which improved competitiveness." You are very definitive about no exceptions in your way of thinking about this.

Change that to "*can result* in competitive advantages" in the first sentence, and add "can persist even when not masked by an advantageous trait" to the second sentence and we will be in almost complete agreement.

Now back to drones. Please show me any evidence (other than guessing and hand waving) that death after mating is nothing more than a random variation which does not prevent the continuation of the species and there is in fact a competitive advantage and we will be in complete agreement. (which is basically what I said)


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

Very similar to why female bees die after they sting.
One has the venom sac remaining, the other has the sperm sac remaining in the victim.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

David LaFerney said:


> Notice that I said dominant and many recessive traits. Albinism is a recessive, and therefore can be passed on without expression - so it can continue to be passed along despite being a mal-adaptation.


...and if one happens to be an albino bunny in the forest, that bunny is toast. If, however, that albino bunny finds itself in captivity, that same trait that made it stick out as a free lunch now greatly increases its chances to reproduce.

Sickle cell anemia can be a serious (and deadly) trait in humans. _But_ it also provides significant resistance to malaria. 

The vast majority of mutations are clearly deadly (dead ends). Things that we would think of as 'traits' are neither bad or good...it is how they relate to the environment that is important.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Good point Dan. The sting is a 'modified ovipositor'.

When Jerry Hayes spoke at our state club a few years ago, he did 'the classroom, live', and answered questions.

Ramona showed up loaded for bear...she asked if drones had vestigial wax glands like human males have nipples.

deknow



KQ6AR said:


> Very similar to why female bees die after they sting.
> One has the venom sac remaining, the other has the sperm sac remaining in the victim.


----------



## Scpossum (May 4, 2014)

Harley Craig said:


> albino is a recessive trait in whitetail deer, it provides no advantages what so ever so why did they ever develop that trait to begin with?


Way back one was bred to a goat.


----------



## CardsBees (May 14, 2013)

I agree with this. The theory of natural selection is rooted in statistical advantage, though some traits for which we cannot identify a clear advantage exist. It would seem that these may have either held advantage in situations which we cannot recognize or perhaps are linked to advantageous ones and become "carried along." Or perhaps are not disadvantageous enough to be "unselected.". One thing to keep in mind with evolution is the depth if time during which such " selections" occur.

For drones to become eviscerated during mating does not necessarily have to yield a direct advantage, just that for them to live thereafter not does require an advantage.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

maudbid said:


> No, what you said originally was "I think you can explain every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations which improved competitiveness." You are very definitive about no exceptions in your way of thinking about this.
> 
> Change that to "*can result* in competitive advantages" in the first sentence, and add "can persist even when not masked by an advantageous trait" to the second sentence and we will be in almost complete agreement.
> 
> Now back to drones. Please show me any evidence (other than guessing and hand waving) that death after mating is nothing more than a random variation which does not prevent the continuation of the species and there is in fact a competitive advantage and we will be in complete agreement. (which is basically what I said)


I think I see the problem. You are equating "adaptation" with "any change" or "any mutation" *beneficial or not* - while the definition of adaptation which I am using is "*a beneficial change* in the structure or function of an organism by which the organism becomes more fit to survive and multiply in its environment." the opposite being mal-adaptation - a change which makes an organism less fit.

In the specific case of the OP I pretty much said that I have no evidence "I just made this up." But I don't see the death of the drone itself as an adaptation (a beneficial change) or mal-adaptation - if it is it doesn't seem to be obvious (to me) as to how it is. But I do see the mechanism which transfers as much genetic material as possible to the queen as a (beneficial) adaptation. The death of the drone seems to me to be a side effect which probably is not important enough to be selected either for or against. The fact that drones are plentiful and disposable is a feature, not a flaw.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

Remember that no one is driving evlolution, it's a random process. Traits appear by the usual method -- base substitutions in genes and mis-matching of replication, along with viral insertions and deletions. Traits that enhance reproduction are spread through the population, traits that result in lesser reproduction vanish as the organisms with them die out. Also remember that that evolution occurs in a POPULATION, not in individuals. Easy to get tripped up there.

There are a couple reasons that drones die in mating, the first of which is that they convulse to inject sperm into the queen. The penis breaks off to plug the queen and ensure that the sperm stays put and its not ejected. The next drone's penis will dislodge the broken one. The workers remove the last one after the mated queen returns to the hive. This also flips the drone backwards off the queen, and the concussion of doing so not only breaks off the penis, but it also tends to squeeze out the drones intestines. He's done his job, and it doesn't matter if he lives or not, he's delivered his packet of sperm and has no other purpose.

I can usually tell when a queen has successfully mated and returned to the hive if I look in the late afternoon -- there will be a large number of dead or dying drones in the grass in front of the hive. The drone comet usually follows the queen back, and many of the drones are worn out to the point of death. There is no "reason" why this works the way it does, it just happens to work out well for the bees, and is a very common characteristic of all the Hymenoptera. In most species only the mated queen overwinters, and usually hibernates, but the pattern is there.

Be careful not to give genes or evolution human characteristics. I see this all the time, and it causes all sorts of trouble. Genes are just genetic material coding for proteins, they are NOT self-aware and do not plan or think. Evolution is a totally random process, it also is not human, does not have a brain, and does not plan. It just happens

I think this is what freaks people out so much about natural selection and evolution -- it's not a comfortable thought that your presence is a random event without "higher" meaning. Makes people very uncomfortable when no one is driving....

Peter


----------



## Matt F (Oct 7, 2014)

maudbid said:


> Why would the current panda be a more competetive selection over a panda which could eat bamboo and other plants? Possibly that other form of panda (assuming one ever existed) was killed prematurely due to an accidental death?


Or possible the other panda routinely foraged in other forests, and was routinely eaten by tigers. The point is it could have happened either way.


----------



## Matt F (Oct 7, 2014)

David LaFerney said:


> Eye color? I don't know - maybe variety in eye color results in more successful mating behavior. Dark eyes may be an adaptation to bright sunlight while light color may be a recessive. Just guessing.
> 
> The appendix is being reconsidered - it might be a repository for beneficial gut bacteria - and thus a beneficial adaptation even now. Vestigial body structures may have lost their original purpose, but that doesn't mean that they never had one.
> 
> Male nipples - nipples are obviously an adaptation of mammals to feed offspring. The reason that both males and females have them is that male and female bodies are pretty much identical in structure other than developmental differences. All of the female parts have male analogs and vice versa.


Your statements are true but they contradict your original point, which was that you can explain every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations which improved competitiveness. And the appendix may have provided an advantage at some point in the evolutionary timeline but now it's a liability. In this case medicine has overcome the vulnerability of the appendix which, if untreated, would likely evolve itself out of existence by killing enough humans prior to reproductive age to promote a genetic advantage of those with a stable, smaller, or lack of an appendix.

Eye color clearly doesn't improve competitiveness, if it did we'd all have the same color of eyes. Brown eyes are dominant, yet the recessive persists. Male nipples don't provide any advantage, and never have, yet they still exist simply because they don't provide a statistical _disadvantage_.

This discussion is silly. Drones die when they mate because they only get the chance to mate once and it's an advantage to deposit as much sperm as possible. There's also a developmental advantage in that the larva adaptation for female stinger to male reproductive organ is small, requiring less energy during larva development and a greater percentage of viable offspring, particularly during dimes of drought/dearth.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

OK I did say "_I think *you can explain* every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations_" 

I didn't say that *I* can explain *or that anyone can prove* any of this.


----------



## Matt F (Oct 7, 2014)

David LaFerney said:


> OK I did say "_I think *you can explain* every single dominantly inheritable and many recessive traits of any living thing - both physical and behavioral - as adaptations_"
> 
> I didn't say that *I* can explain *or that anyone can prove* any of this.


Well that's an interesting "out" but I won't object, :thumbsup: peace.


----------



## IAmTheWaterbug (Jun 4, 2014)

There's way too much . . . stinger waving in this thread.


----------



## chiefman (May 18, 2003)

Matt F said:


> This discussion is silly. Drones die when they mate because they only get the chance to mate once and it's an advantage to deposit as much sperm as possible. There's also a developmental advantage in that the larva adaptation for female stinger to male reproductive organ is small, requiring less energy during larva development and a greater percentage of viable offspring, particularly during dimes of drought/dearth.


This argument makes no sense 
>>Drones die when they mate because they only get the chance to mate once and it's an advantage to deposit as much sperm as possible.

So does most other creatures who deposit millions of sperm without dying

>> There's also a developmental advantage in that the larva adaptation for female stinger to male reproductive organ is small, requiring less energy during larva development and a greater percentage of viable offspring, particularly during dimes of drought/dearth.

So would it not be better to have less drones in a colony who survive mating use even less energy ?

I am enjoying the thinking here on this post and the theory of how mating occurs but I think the question is still up for debate. Maybe a Philosophical approach could answer the question.

I cannot see an advantage in a collective community producing only a "flying sperm" with a heavy burden resources only to not reuse the source again and again.

If a bad trait is passed on so be it.. that is the cost of natural selection. Some undesired genes will be passed on but over all and over many millennia. the better or more desirable traits will prevail. 

I don't see how natural selection humans, plants, insects or bacteria differ when they need find the "survival of the fittest"


----------



## MajorJC (Apr 13, 2013)

Hops Brewster said:


> It is known that drones consume a large quantity of food (much more than any individual worker) while in the hive but do not contribute any resources. Their sole purpose to the species is to mate the queens. Once that mission is accomplished there is no longer any purpose for the drone to continue consuming the resources of the hive. It must cease to exist in the best interest of the colony. Therefore, mating is a suicide mission, mating in the best interest of perpetuating the species, and dying in the survival of the colony.


This gets my vote as "Best Answer" :thumbsup:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Male drone bees die because if they didn't they'd be redundant. And with brothers, they are.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Matt F said:


> Well that's an interesting "out" but I won't object, :thumbsup: peace.


Sorry, i didn't mean it as an "out" per se. I just don't want to make another lap. This is one of those subjects where people tend to invest in a position and minds rarely change. It was fun while it lasted though, so thanks.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

jwcarlson said:


> It's a random combination, so there are many more than two variants.
> Yes, I know they drift.


The drones reproductive parts are left in the queen. The next drone pulls it out. When the queen returns to the hive the last penis is still there and the bees clean it up. This is called a mating sign so the bees know she is really mated. Kind of like the medieval custom of hanging a bloody sheet out of the honeymoon window.


----------



## Ravenzero (Sep 26, 2012)

Drones are just the genetic product of a single queen, so really, All the drones from the same Queen have the same DNA. 
Heres a thought, when a queen is mated with a drone, its really by another queen (in a weird way!)


----------



## Matt F (Oct 7, 2014)

chiefman said:


> This argument makes no sense
> >> There's also a developmental advantage in that the larva adaptation for female stinger to male reproductive organ is small, equiring less energy during larva development and a greater percentage of viable offspring, particularly during dimes of drought/dearth.
> 
> So would it not be better to have less drones in a colony who survive mating use even less energy ?


Interesting points. The unique aspect here is that drones don't live through the winter to be ready to mate in the following year. I assume that's because it takes the hive less energy to raise a new drone than it would to keep a drone through the winter, creating an advantage for the hive when drones have short lives.

Yes, having fewer drones that use even less energy would be an advantage to that hive's survival, but not to its propagation because the odds of the drones mating decreases if the hive has fewer of them. A hive with no drones at all would be even better (from a resource usage perspective), but those genetics can't get passed on.

Given that drones have short life spans and that their odds of mating are very small already, it's advantageous for the drone to make the maximum total commitment in any mating opportunity it encounters. 

Remember, all those drones you see in the late summer and fall have never mated and their odds are basically nil.


----------



## Bee Bliss (Jun 9, 2010)

Drones die because they have completed their bucket list which consisted of one item ..........and in doing so suffered a mortal wound from which there is no recovery.


----------



## philip.devos (Aug 10, 2013)

Because they got lucky!?


----------

