# Honey Bees in the New World



## chief (Apr 19, 2005)

I have been told over and over that honey bees were brought to the new world. I have also heard others on this forum hint that they think they my have been here before that. I tend to think that they may have been here before the white man but I'm just guessing. Does anyone have any strong opinions on this?


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

heres a site chief that tells about bee's being brought here and also about a american bee fossil being the oldest ever found.

http://www.research.ku.edu/scicoal/2003b/bee.shtml


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

There are lots of strong opinions, believe you me.Organicbeekeepers had quite a "discussion" about it not too long ago.

My opinion, based on what I have been taught and what I have found in research on my own is that Apis mellifera mellifera was brought to this continent along with many other non-native plants and animals. Such as three plants that I heard something about today that I think is neat. Kohlrabbi, ruhbarb and the pointsettia were all three introduced to this north american continent by thwe same person, whose name I didn't get into my memory bank, sorry.

There is my opinion(what? is that peggjam coming? i'd better duck.). You asked.

Mark Berninghausen


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

There is no evidence to support the wishful thinking
that there might have been any type of honey bee
(one that stores "surplus" for overwintering)
in the Western Hemisphere before immigrants brought
them over.

One clear form of proof is the Native American
legends. They had stories about every animal
known to them, and there are no stories about
bees that pre-date the immigrants.

Yes, there are a bunch of different types of
bee native to North America, but none of them
are honey bees. Most of them are solitary bees.

The primary proponent of the whole "honey bees
were here before the immigrants" idea is a
single beekeeper in Arizona, one who regularly
comes up with a number of highly creative ideas
that consistently keep this beekeeper "in the
limelight" within a small circle of people who
are apparently incapable of critical thought or
independent reasoning.

No, there is no solid proof that honey bees
in one form or another were not in North America
prior to the immigrants, but it is also hard to
come up with "solid proof" that will convince
some folks that the Loch Ness Monster does not
exist, as proving a negative is often problematic. 

Not quite yet, anyway. 

The "bee genome" project will likely put this
suburban myth to pasture once and for all, as
it will be trivial to trace DNA back to
"ancestral roots", much as can be done with
human DNA today.

But even that will only force the true believers
to simply modify their claim - they will promptly
switch to saying that the "native honey bees"
all died out, leaving no trace to be found.

As fossilized insects are rare finds, they would
be "safe" with a claim like that, as it would be
even harder to disprove.

Another easy cross-check is that it is well known 
that the stingless bees of Central and South 
America were the only bees known to the cultures 
in those areas, and were managed for their (tiny) 
honey yields well before the arrival of the
European immigants in North American, so if any 
form of honey bee that stored significant
honey existed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere,
it would have either spread southward by natural
means, or been discovered and "brought back home"
by the Central Americans, who made regular
forays into the heart of North America, and
certainly would have both noticed such a bee,
and realized the obvious potential for domestication.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>There is no evidence to support the wishful thinking...

Bee that as it may, I still fail to see why anybody really *cares* beyond engaging in a purely intellectual exercise. Sure. Interesting, but relevant? Some people sure can get excited about this topic though. I just don't get it.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

as legend tell it chief along the north eastern coast, native americans commonly called the honey bee 'white man's flies'. don't know if that should be recognized as prima facia evidence, but it certainly should be viewed as a clue.

as a side bar, one of mizz tecumseh university entomologist types tell me there are 700+ species of social 'wasp' in texas alone. and yes there is a ground dwelling bumblebee that does store a bit of honey. local legend sezs that some folks use to collect this bumblebee honey, but as big and as bad as those girls are I do find this part of the tale a bit hard to believe.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Very well written piece Jim. I could not agree more....


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>as legend tell it chief along the north eastern coast, native americans commonly called the honey bee 'white man's flies'.

Actually that's as Thomas Jefferson tells it and many people quote him on it and I have been trying to find a coroborating source and I have not found one and no one has been able to provide one.

There are American Indian stories with bees. Of course the problem is proving they predate the Europeans with only a verbal history to fall back on. In Lakota, anyway, there are real names for bees, honey and beeswax, unlike the made up compound words for horses and monkeys and other European animals and things.

I know of no way to prove or disprove the pre-european existance of honeybees here. Even the documents from Eurpoeans that SAY they were native here (yes there are some) are discounted (at least by the experts here) as being late enough that some COULD have gotten here. But then the Vikings and others from other places were here before Columbus so those Europeans may have brought some too.

Saying they were or wern't here is all speculation. Popular speculation is often accepted as scientific fact.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"There is my opinion(what? is that peggjam coming? i'd better duck.). You asked."


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>Popular speculation is often accepted as scientific fact.

What?!? Maybe among uninformed members of society, but not among members of the scientific community.

I can understand why Lakota would have words for bees and honey and beeswax. Bees are native to North America, just not honey bees. Anyone else ever worked with bumblebees? They make small amounts of honey (measured in ounces at the end of the year, as opposed to pounds), and they make wax comb, too. Bumblebees are native to North America.

Systematists rely on biogeographical information to make determinations about ranges of organisms. For another example, look at rabbits or hares in Australia. Are they native there? In the case of honey bees, we recognize distinct races or strains in different regions of the range. Apis mellifera mellifera in northern Europe, A. m. scutella in Africa, A. m. capensis in Africa, A. m. liguistica in southern Europe, etc. Where are the representatives of an American race? (Remember that preserved insect specimens last a long, long time in collections -- specimens collected hundreds of years ago remain in collections still, but none of these belong to an American race or species of honey bee.)

In short, the scientific theory now is that no honey bees (in the genus Apis) are native to the western hemisphere. That's a theory, not a scientific fact or a scientific hypothesis. Theories are backed up by many experiments and loads of data. Hypotheses are the original, testable statements or ideas. Facts are data points. (For instance, "A honey bee collected in Brookings, SD, on 12 August 2005 has six legs," is a scientific fact. "Honey bees have six legs," is a scientific theory. "Exposing honey bees to microwave radiation will result in bees with only four legs," is a hypothesis.)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

The man who took the famous picture of the Loch Ness "monster" has recently been reported , on national news, to have died. It has also been reported that that person reveiled that the picture was facked and even how it was facked.

Thought you aught to know.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

thanks BjornBee, mwb


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>Popular speculation is often accepted as scientific fact.
>What?!? Maybe among uninformed members of society, but not among members of the scientific community.

LOL!!! Oh... I'm sorry, I guess you were serious.

>Bumblebees are native to North America.

Lakota have a word for bumble bee and a different one for honey bee. Just like we do.

>Where are the representatives of an American race?

The early reports from the Spaniards concerning native honey bees say they are black and indistingushable from the black honey bees in Europe. They also talk about various native stingless bees and wasps.

>"Exposing honey bees to microwave radiation will result in bees with only four legs," is a hypothesis.) 

Not if you've done it and repeated it.









>There is no evidence to support the wishful thinking...

What's wishful about it? I don't care if they are or aren't.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>Popular speculation is often accepted as scientific fact.

Yeah, I was serious. Just as a test of your claim, can you give examples of popular speculations that have been accepted as scientific fact by the scientific community?

(By the way, see my above comments about scientific facts, scientific theories and scientific hypotheses. Since these terms are widely used and accepted in the scientific community, a "popular speculation" by definition could NOT be a "scientific fact.")

>>Lakota have a word for bumble bee and a different one for honey bee. Just like we do.

I'd like some enlightenment on this one. I'm not Lakota, and I don't speak or understand any Lakota, so I don't know how this one works out. In English, though, we use three words to differentiate between the two groups by common names, "bee," "honey," and "bumble." Since bumblebees do make some honey, I would assume the Lakota would have a term to refer to this honey. Is the word or term used to identify honey bees, too? Does Lakota contain a term or word for a "bee" in general, or does each specific type get its own distinct name?

>>The early reports from the Spaniards concerning native honey bees say they are black and indistingushable from the black honey bees in Europe.

OK, I recognize that they weren't necessarily biologists, much less taxonomists or systematists, so to some people they might be indistinguishable, but doesn't it seem odd to you that bees would have specialized to form distinct races even between northern Europe and southern Europe, yet the "native honey bees" (if indeed they were) were the same race as the northern European bees? Personally, I would expect some different races -- not just one, but, for example, distinct races native to South America and Central America and North America, just like in Europe and Africa, and well as maybe some distinct races even within North America. Obviously, some of the races from Europe have advantages in different parts of the country (overwintering abilities, for example), so I would expect similar forms to have inhabited North America if, indeed, they were native.

Having said that, that still doesn't change my comments about specimens. "Descriptions" in papers were often pretty far off. In your citation, you even refered to the native stingless bees -- couldn't these "indistinguishable" black honey bees really have been one of the stingless bees? If you want more examples, go back and read some of the old descriptions of armadilloes and oppossums and, one of my particular favorites, "unicorns." The unicorns were described in detail in old papers as horses with single horns, and the descriptions were backed up with physical examples of the horns that had been cut off the unicorns. Those horns actually came from narwhals.

>>Not if you've done it and repeated it. 

That's true. Then it becomes a theory.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
What?!? Maybe among uninformed members of society, but not among members of the scientific community.

Michael, you cannot argue with this since he has invoked the name of scientific community.  

By the way Kieck, invoking the name of scientific community is a common way of getting the uninformed members of society to accept popular speculation as scientific fact.









fact: something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality

<Kieck>
"Honey bees have six legs," is a scientific theory.

No it's not, it's a fact!

You can count them and see. Also it is a fact by definition since honey bees belong to the class insecta and the definition of insecta includes a requirement for 3 pairs of walking legs.

JohnF


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
That's true. Then it becomes a theory.

scientific fact

n : an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

No it isn't, it becomes a scientific fact.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>>Honey bees have six legs," is a scientific theory.

>No it's not, it's a fact!

Then it's wrong. I personally have seen bees with fewer than six legs (likely because of amputations). So, as soon as it becomes a fact, it becomes wrong.

>>Also it is a fact by definition since honey bees belong to the class insecta and the definition of insecta includes a requirement for 3 pairs of walking legs.

That one's also wrong. Many butterflies naturally have only two pairs of legs. Period. Praying mantises only have two pairs of walking legs (the other pair is used for grabbing prey only). Or maybe those insects don't qualify as belonging to the class Insecta?  

>>By the way Kieck, invoking the name of scientific community is a common way of getting the uninformed members of society to accept popular speculation as scientific fact. 

Like I asked Michael, provide some examples of 
popular speculation being forced on uninformed members of society through the invocation of "scientific community." Can you list some specific examples? You made the claim -- back it up!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

You two guys (Kieck and John F) remind me of a couple of film critics I used to watch on TV. Great pair. Never could agree on anything. Totally opposite likes and disklikes in movies and apparently, everything else. Always got along though. I could never figure that part out.

Anyways, keep it up.

George-


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

Ugh, you tax me man.

<Kieck>
Then it's wrong. I personally have seen bees with fewer than six legs (likely because of amputations). So, as soon as it becomes a fact, it becomes wrong.

This is context shifting. You know I was speaking specifically the species and now you want to shift to individuals.

Ok:

Honey bees don't have stingers.
Honey bees are wingless.
Honey bees are crunchy dead matter.
Honey bees have no legs.

Ugh...

<Kieck>
That one's also wrong. Many butterflies naturally have only two pairs of legs. Period. Praying mantises only have two pairs of walking legs (the other pair is used for grabbing prey only). Or maybe those insects don't qualify as belonging to the class Insecta? 

I didn't make it up. I just looked it up. If you biologist guys want to make definitions that you can't keep straight, then go right ahead. My point was that insecta is defined as having 6 legs and honey bees are insecta.

So, if insecta are defined to have 6 legs and honey bees are insecta then honey bees have 6 legs by definition, which means honey bees have 6 legs is a fact by definition.

I don't know nuth'n about 4 legged butterflies or how or why a biologist would define the legs of a mantis. You need to get with your biologist buddies on those.

But hey, let's just switch my definition above to honey bees belong to the class hexapoda. You have to agree that hexapoda have 6 legs, right? So now can we say that honey bees have 6 legs is a fact by definition?

<Kieck>
You made the claim -- back it up!

It is often spouted as a fact that members of the scientific community are immune to accepting popular speculation as scientific fact.

Not good enough...

Early scientists believed the planet flat. It was scientific fact until proven wrong.

Still not good enough...

There is a group of scientists that espouse as scientific fact some of the theories of quantum mechanics that cannot be explained or rigorously observed.

More??? ...

There is a group of scientists that promote the theory of the big bang as scientific fact which I know cannot be observed.

To be fair...

And there are scientists that argue that intelligent design is a scientific fact. They go so far as to have proofs.

JohnF


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The entire idea that there might have been
a native North American honey bee that somehow
escaped being found, hived, and documented by
the Central Americans in the same manner
as the stingless bees that WERE managed by
the Central Americans for their tiny honey
"crops" is so preposterous that you'd not only have
to put your brain on hold to believe it, you'd
have to remove it from your skull, toss down the
stairs, and then stomp it into a bloody mass.

While it is a shame that the North American
natives neither built large stone edifices nor
kept records that survived, I'd like to ask
which specific words in Lakota are used to
describe various bees. (I have some good
friends who grew up "on the rez", and can
ask some elders for a cross-check on the
linguistics. Not to doubt Michael on this,
but I've seen even those fluent in Lakotah
since childhood debate the "actual" meaning
of this term or that one, and they've always
used old guys as their "Oxford English Dictionary".)

If one wishes, one can do one's homework on this
general issue, or one can take the easy route,
and thus view all scholarly inquiry to a mere
"stance", one able to be questioned by mere idle
speculation.

As for "theories", I'd like to point out that
our understanding of the force of gravity is
classified as a "theory". I for one, will
be happy to renounce my endorsement for this
"theory" the moment anyone drops an object,
and video tapes it flying upwards rather than
downwards. Theories have data to back them
up, making them very different from "speculation"
or "wild guesses", and the singular form of the
collective noun 'data' is NOT 'anecdote'.

And if there is a "scientific community" anywhere,
you would not want to live there - just imagine
the zoning ordinances!


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

"Kohlrabbi, ruhbarb and the pointsettia were all three introduced to this north american continent by thwe same person"

He should have stopped with honeybees thank you very much. I'm even tempted to send all of the kohlrabbi back.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Jim Fischer>
is so preposterous that you'd not only have
to put your brain on hold to believe it, you'd
have to remove it from your skull, toss down the
stairs, and then stomp it into a bloody mass.

Well, there ya go. And we thought it impossible to prove a negative.

It seems it should work equally well as a proof to any negative.

Jim Fischer does not exist.

Proof:

To believe that Jim Fischer exists...
is so preposterous that you'd not only have
to put your brain on hold to believe it, you'd
have to remove it from your skull, toss down the
stairs, and then stomp it into a bloody mass.

<George>
Anyways, keep it up.

I fear I fight a losing battle. Soon, scientific journals will be filled with garbage. Or perhaps I argue with folks that only pretend to be made of scientific metal. I don't ask much, only that if you are going to make an argument and call it a scientific one that you do it in a scientific way.

Big latin words, references to diplomas, names of scientific employers, job titles, or invoking the name of the scientific community as a spokesperson does not cut it.

JohnF


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

The Vikings brought them over in their underwear to keep them warm and dry.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Very good proof exists that the vikings regularly visited the eastern coast of North America 1000 years ago. This proof is in the form of a settlement discovered in eastern Canada and in the form of written records of black bear skins sold by traders in Iceland. Black bears could only have come from North America.

There is no reasonable proof that bees were present in the Americas prior to the first record of a colony brought to South America from Spain in the 1500's. There is a great deal of evidence that fruits and vegetables were carried from the New World to the Old. This includes the Tomato, Bean, Squash, etc. Interestingly enough, there is still argument about the origin of the peanut. This is despite archeological finds in Peru that range from @3000 to @5000 years old including large gold peanuts buried with the dead.

I have seen nothing to indicate that honeybees were present in North America pre Columbus and quite a bit that precludes their presence.

Fusion


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{While it is a shame that the North American
natives neither built large stone edifices nor
kept records that survived,

It is no shame. My ancestors, Seneca, and our brothers, Lakota lived their entire lives in the humble concept there was not puporse in building such monuments to future generations. The whole concept was based on a natural cycle of birth from the earth to the return to the earth after death. Our homes and lives were by design meant to leave no trace. We all have been a part of this universe since the beginning, today is only a part of our history and existance. Our heritage was saved in the spoken word shared by generations who spoke and passed on our truth, not of a person but of a people. In the sense of language there is no english translation to our language. What you called a wolf we called o'tyone' and Lakota called Shunk-mani-tu-tanka. These words were called out through the ancient corridors of time in sacrd places to our brothers before and to come. Both translated in the rawest form - The spirits (brothers) who walked like dogs. That translation how ever poetic it may seem dwarfs in conception to the true meaning. If you were to sit with the elders and listen to their truth in spoken words you would find they dwarf the Pyramids and Stonehenge. Every moment of my every day is guided by the teachings and words of my ancestors. My sense of connection to the 17 past generations responsible for me is as overwhelming as my responsibility to those 17 to come. I don't know about the bees prior to the pilgrims, my wolf clan grandmother would. Don't mourn though for the perceived lack of our monuments, our language and teachings are beyond the compare of any monument as I hope are yours.

[ January 12, 2006, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

michael bush adds:
In Lakota, anyway, there are real names for bees, honey and beeswax, unlike the made up compound words for horses and monkeys and other European animals and things.

tecumseh replies:
nice.... none the less.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim Fischer does not exist.
> Proof:

I think you should have said "Poof!", instead
of "proof".









Reminds me of an old joke:

Rene Descartes walks into a bar.
The bartender says "Will you have a beer?"
Decartes says "I think not..."

...and promptly disappears into a puff of smoke.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Yeah, I was serious. Just as a test of your claim, can you give examples of popular speculations that have been accepted as scientific fact by the scientific community?

What I meant was the speculation by the scientists was presented to the populace and other scientists as fact and accepted as such by both. All you have to do is read the science books from the 50's and 60's when I was growing up to find thousands upon thousands of examples where they presented things as "known" when in fact we have since decided to totally abandon them. I don't have the time to compile a list. Find a textbook from that period and look. They are full of examples. If you want some simple ones to look up try the makeup of the atmospheres and the surface temperatures of the various planets in our solar system and compare them to what we have now measured with probes. But that's just a simplified example that can be easily and specifically looked up. Most of what I was taught as truth is no longer considered true.

>>Lakota have a word for bumble bee and a different one for honey bee. Just like we do.

>I'd like some enlightenment on this one. I'm not Lakota, and I don't speak or understand any Lakota, so I don't know how this one works out. In English, though, we use three words to differentiate between the two groups by common names, "bee," "honey," and "bumble." Since bumblebees do make some honey, I would assume the Lakota would have a term to refer to this honey. Is the word or term used to identify honey bees, too? Does Lakota contain a term or word for a "bee" in general, or does each specific type get its own distinct name?

It works out like English. There are bees, in general(t'uh'mun'ga), honey bees , in particular (t'uh'mun'ga tunkce) and bubmble bees in particular (t'uh'mun'ga tanka) with the name for bee (t'uh'mun'ga) in both honey bee and bumble bee.

Lakota-English Dictionary Rev. Eugene Buechel, SJ 1983 edition Page 501 left column near the bottom:
t'uh'mun'ga tunkce - honey bee
(MDB note: I don't understand why, but tunkce in other contexts means breaking wind, perhaps because bees buzz?)
t'uh'mun'ga wigli - beeswax
t'uh'mun'ga tanka - bumble bee

as opposed to

Buechel: pg718 right column middle of the page
fly - tannicala

Buechel: pg 116 left column middle of the page.
canhanpi - tree sap - maple sugar - sugar

as opposed to:

An English Dakota Dictionary by John P Williamson 1992 edition page 84 right column:

honey-comb n. Tuh'mag'as'in

Also Dakota-English Dictionary by Stephen R. Riggs 1992 edition page 480 left column

tuh'ma'gac'esdi - honey

>>The early reports from the Spaniards concerning native honey bees say they are black and indistingushable from the black honey bees in Europe.

>OK, I recognize that they weren't necessarily biologists, much less taxonomists or systematists, so to some people they might be indistinguishable

Here are their observations. They seem quite aware of differences:

"EXCERPT FROM THE HISTORY OF MEXICO by Abbe D. Francesco Saverio Clavigero (1731-1787)

Translated from original Italian in 1806 by Chas Cullen, Esq.

Excerpt from Book 1, of Valume 1.

There are at least six different kinds of bees. The first is the same as the common bee of Europe, with which it agrees, not only in size, shape and color, but also in its disposition and manners, and in the qualities of its honey and wax.

The second species, which differs from the first only in having no sting, is the bee of Yucatan and Chiapa, which makes the fine, clear honey of ESTABENTUN, of an aromatic flavor, superior to that of all other kinds of honey with which we are acquainted.The honey is taken from them six times a year, that is once in every other month; but the best is that which is got in November, being made from a white flower like Jessamine, which blooms in September, called in that country ESTABENTUN,from which the honey has derived its name. The honey of Estabentun is in high estimation with the English and French, who touch at the ports of Yucatan; and I have known the French of Guarico to buy it sometimes for the purpose of sending it as a present to the king.

The third species resembles in its form, the winged ants, but is smaller than the common bee, and without a sting. This insect, which is peculiar to warm and temperate climates, forms nests, in size and shape resembling sugar loaves, and even sometimes greatly exceeding these in size, which are suspended from rocks, or from trees, and particularly from the oak. The populousness of these hives is much greater than those of the common bee. The nymphs of this bee, which are eatable, are white and round, like a pearl. The honey is of a greyish color, but of a fine flavor.

The fourth species is a yellow bee, smaller than the common one, but like it, furnished with a sting. Its honey is not equal to those already mentioned.

The fifth is a small bee furnished with a sting, which constructs hives of an orbicular form, in subterranean cavities; and the honey is sour and somewhat bitter.

The TLALPIPPROLLI, which is the sixth species, is black and yellow, of the size of the common bee, but has no sting.

WASP

The XICOTLI or Xicote, is a thick black wasp, with a yellow belly, which makes a very sweet honey, in holes made by it in walls. It is provided with a strong sting, which gives a very painful wound.The Cuicalmiahautl has likewise a sting, but whether it makes honey or not, we do not know."


>I'd like to ask
which specific words in Lakota are used to
describe various bees. (I have some good
friends who grew up "on the rez", and can
ask some elders for a cross-check on the
linguistics. Not to doubt Michael on this,
but I've seen even those fluent in Lakotah
since childhood debate the "actual" meaning
of this term or that one, and they've always
used old guys as their "Oxford English Dictionary".)

Asked by you (Jim) on February 19, 2005 11:38 PM and answered by me on February 20, 2005 10:31 AM:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002492;p=1

To which you responed:

"[Tons o' nonsense snipped...]"


>Very good proof exists that the vikings regularly visited the eastern coast of North America 1000 years ago. This proof is in the form of a settlement discovered in eastern Canada and in the form of written records of black bear skins sold by traders in Iceland. Black bears could only have come from North America.

Exactly.

>I have seen nothing to indicate that honeybees were present in North America pre Columbus and quite a bit that precludes their presence.

What that precludes their presence. I don't believe you have presented anything that would preclude their presence.

>{While it is a shame that the North American
natives neither built large stone edifices nor
kept records that survived,

>It is no shame. My ancestors, Seneca, and our brothers, Lakota lived their entire lives in the humble concept there was not puporse in building such monuments to future generations.

Mitaku'yasin (We are all related)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>This is context shifting. You know I was speaking specifically the species and now you want to shift to individuals.

I know in a way that this is shifting the context somewhat, but that's why we refer to such things as "theories" rather than "facts." Theories are backed up by repeated observations and demonstrated to apply, but they don't have to be thrown out if one observation doesn't match them. Facts, on the other hand, should be rejected if they can't be verified.

>>If you biologist guys want to make definitions that you can't keep straight, then go right ahead. My point was that insecta is defined as having 6 legs and honey bees are insecta.

No, see you're twisting this definition in a couple ways. First, like I said before, this is a theory, not a fact. (What problem do you have with calling things like this "theories," anyway?) Secondly, the definition says that the ancestral state of Insecta (which is more specific and different than Hexapoda, by the way) is having six legs. It doesn't require that every individual have six legs, or even that every species or family have members that still have six legs. A somwhat different example: Hymenopterans (ants, bees, wasps) have two pairs of wings, and the hind wings and forewings are linked by hamuli (these aren't the only traits that separate hymenopterans from other insects, but they are useful.) Now, go out and look at your average worker ant. How many wings do you see? Do they have hamuli? Do they still qualify as Hymenoptera?

Rather than continuing to argue about these scientific definitions, I'd like to know, JohnF, if you've ever taken courses in biology specifically or science in general? The definitions of scientific terms that you keep wanting to use are really, really different than those commonly used and taught.

I did ask for some popular speculations accepted as scientific facts among scientists (we get into a whole different ballgame when we start talking about popular speculations accepted as scientific facts by members of the general public). You came up with a few that I'm not so sure about.

>>Early scientists believed the planet flat. It was scientific fact until proven wrong.

Was it science, or the church, that insisted the planet was flat? (And again, I beg you to check the definitions of "scientific fact," "scientific theory," and "scientific hypothesis." By my understanding of these definitions, this one was a "scientific hypothesis.")

>>There is a group of scientists that espouse as scientific fact some of the theories of quantum mechanics that cannot be explained or rigorously observed.

Such as...? More importantly, do "they" (the scientists) list these as "scientific facts" or "scientific theories?"

>>There is a group of scientists that promote the theory of the big bang as scientific fact which I know cannot be observed.

This time you used the word "theory." I won't argue this, because, among the scientists I know, this one is up for debate. Like you pointed out, it wasn't observed by humans. Just to play devil's advocate, though, why couldn't a divine being create the world with a "big bang?" Are you sure that the two ideas are contradictory?

>>And there are scientists that argue that intelligent design is a scientific fact. They go so far as to have proofs.

This is part of the reason that I won't argue the last one with you. "Intelligent design" is about as observable as the "Big Bang." Again, though, do these scientists call it a "scientific fact" or a "scientific theory?"

>>It is often spouted as a fact that members of the scientific community are immune to accepting popular speculation as scientific fact.

"Often?" By whom? I never said that members of the scientific community are immune to acceptance of popular speculation. I objected to the use of this statement:

>>Popular speculation is often accepted as scientific fact.

Again, for anyone who makes the claims, back it up. At least list numbers or specific examples, such as, "90% of biologists believed xxxxx because it was popular speculation." Then, to use the term "often," you should be able to provide case after case after case. "Often" doesn't mean that it happens occasionally (which, I'll admit, can and does happen), "often" means it happens regularly.

To bring it back to the original issue of the thread, I agree with the position of Jim Fischer's posts. I might not word it the same way, but right on, Jim!









For the sake of the discussion, I'll list the species that belong in the genus of honey bees (Apis) that I know about right now. I could miss a few. Please add to it if someone knows of more extant species:

Apis mellifera
A. cerana
A. koschevnikovi
A. nigrocincta
A. dorsata
A. laboriosa
A. florea
A. andreniformis

Other than A. mellifera, I don't believe any of the others live in the Americas, even to any extent in capivity. I wonder why A. mellifera would have been more likely to spread to the Americas than some of the species native to eastern Asia?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks, Michael! Your post on this made my day! Really, I have been very much interested in the Lakota words for bees. I, too, had read about "white-man's fly" and always wondered whether its use was as widespread as some writers imply. Thanks again!









I wonder, though, how the Lakota names imply that honey bees were native to the Americas?

I noticed, too, that the reference to the bees you posted was from the mid-1700s. My understanding was that the first honey bees brought to the Americas likely came with colonists in the 1600s. Based on that information, bees could have had more than 100 years to spread across the Americas. We're seeing how rapidly AHB is spreading now; why couldn't imported bees have spread rapidly back then?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Michael:

If you were addressing me when you said:

> Asked by you (Jim)... and answered by me... 
> To which you responed:
> "[Tons o' nonsense snipped...]"
> Very good proof exists that the vikings 

Sorry, I neither wrote any nonsense, nor
did I mention the Vikings, so you just insulted
"fusion_power" who may be less tolerant of your
delusions of adequacy than I.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I wonder, though, how the Lakota names imply that honey bees were native to the Americas?

I am only saying it implies it, but to the Lakota Elders I've talked to anything that has a true Lakota name was here before the Europeans. Anything that has a "made-up" compound name was just a Lakota "description" of something. In other words, "shunkawakan" is a made up name. It means "sacred dog" or "mysterious dog" but is now the word for horse. "Shunkawicasha" means "dog man" but is now used as the word for monkey. A dog, on the other hand, is just a "shunka". And a coyote is a "shukmanitu". I've had them ask me why there's a true Lakota name for Elephant. I wonder if it's because they found the skelotons of the mastedons often enough to name them?

>I noticed, too, that the reference to the bees you posted was from the mid-1700s. My understanding was that the first honey bees brought to the Americas likely came with colonists in the 1600s.

In New England.

> Based on that information, bees could have had more than 100 years to spread across the Americas. We're seeing how rapidly AHB is spreading now; why couldn't imported bees have spread rapidly back then? 

I don't know. Could they? If so that would explain why he found bees just like the ones in Europe. But it's a long ways from New England. If so, it puts a damper on the "white mans flies" concept because it would have passed through many areas where no white man had ever been seen.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Isn't the Lakota name for honey bees a compound name? How do you tell the difference between compound names and "made-up" compound names?

>>Could they? If so that would explain why he found bees just like the ones in Europe. But it's a long ways from New England. If so, it puts a damper on the "white mans flies" concept because it would have passed through many areas where no white man had ever been seen.

I would think it possible. After all, look at the Asian lady beetles or Halloween lady beetles or whatever common name you wish to give them (Harmonia axiridis). They were introduced to North America less than 100 years ago, yet now range across virtually all of the United States. It is a long way from New England, but Texas is a long way from Brazil, too, yet AHB made it across that distance in, what, less than 50 years?

It definitely puts a damper on the "white man's fly" concept, but like you pointed out, all references to that may originate from a writing by Thomas Jefferson. Do you (or anyone else) know if any tribes other than some of those in the New England states have a term that translates similarly?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> but to the Lakota Elders I've talked to 

Who? 
Where?


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
I know in a way that this is shifting the context somewhat, but that's why we refer to such things as "theories" rather than "facts." Theories are backed up by repeated observations and demonstrated to apply, but they don't have to be thrown out if one observation doesn't match them. Facts, on the other hand, should be rejected if they can't be verified.

Huh? Your argument is that we should not call anything a fact because we can shift context and warp the meaning?

(voice of Joda) Agnostic we are!

Do ya want me to spin your world? You cannot know anything because everything you think you know rest on one great assumption. Let's get philosophical.









<Kieck>
(What problem do you have with calling things like this "theories," anyway?)

I have no problem. Theory: a working hypothesis.

Let's delve a little deeper - An hypothesis is an off the cuff, from the top of your head, explaination of something observed. (or even sometimes, made up







) If we formalize that there hypothesis into something testable, we get to change its status to that of a theory. Here it will sit until we exhaust all we know and every conceivable method to falsify it. Then we call it a fact. Yes, this is the simple view. Yes I can formalize this for you if you need me to. Yes, it explains how some things get to be facts and then Poof <thanks Jim> they get shown as wrong. <how you ask?> By inventing some new way of falsifying a theory.

We can call everything we know a theory. Afterall, I can't prove that we've yet invented every method to falsify any one thing that we think is a fact.

This is an awful like our discussion of "law" and "theory". We all know these things, laws and fact, exist but we can't really know what they are. Somewhere along the way, when we've exhausted every known means of falsifying some theory, we just call it a law or a fact. Don't ever get the idea that science can't be wrong. I don't know any real scientist that believes that.

Now back to your question. "No, see you're twisting this definition in a couple ways." I didn't twist it. I looked it up because my memory told me that insects were defined as having 6 legs. (OK, I looked it up again) I have a few definition. One states "...comprising segmented animals that ... have ... a 3-segmented thorax each segment of which bears a pair of legs ...". Another "... including those that have ... includes the Hexapoda, or six-legged insects and the Myriapoda ..." which is different. I'm not sure who's twisting. I'm glad I decided to switch to hexapoda, though.

<Kieck>
(What problem do you have with calling things like this "theories," anyway?)

I'm coming back to this one.

I am making use if logic. It is a kind of math that has some rules. In logic there is also the idea of fact. It is a little more strict than the science definition because it requires that you identify the assumption, but anyway there is this way of making something a fact by defining it as such.

So. Honeybees are defined as having six legs. (among other things)

That honeybees have six legs is now a fact by definition. If it does not have six legs, it cannot meet our definition of honeybee so it cannot be a honeybee.

I can go slower if you need me to.

<Kieck>
Rather than continuing to argue about these scientific definitions, I'd like to know, JohnF, if you've ever taken courses in biology specifically or science in general?

Oww.. Sticking... someone... get knife out... <crickets, tumbleweeds, and the sound of open gallows door squeaking in the wind.>

Well, gosh, I even have a diploma that says so! Just so you know, I didn't take just any biology courses, I was one of the few in the "honors" biology courses.

Does this mean we get to keep definitions in our discussions?

<Kieck>
The definitions of scientific terms that you keep wanting to use are really, really different than those commonly used and taught.

Says you. I just keep looking them up. Someone needs to get these things in line. Of course you are free to post your definition.

<Kieck>
I did ask for some popular speculations accepted as scientific facts among scientists (we get into a whole different ballgame when we start talking about popular speculations accepted as scientific facts by members of the general public). You came up with a few that I'm not so sure about.

Ok. Let's see if there are any that you can agree with. I only need to show one to make my proof...

Oops, better do this one separate:
<Kieck>
(And again, I beg you to check the definitions of "scientific fact," "scientific theory," and "scientific hypothesis." By my understanding of these definitions, this one was a "scientific hypothesis.")

Ok.

Scientific fact:
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted 

Hmm, that's a little less strict than what I said above, but ok.

Scientific theory:
n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Cool enough, I got this one right. Although I did say testable and formalized. Hmm...

Scientific hypothesis:
Sorry no entry. Let's jump to - hypothesis:
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. 
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. 
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Well, that third one is logic. I don't know, does tentative mean off the cuff and not yet formalized?

<back to see if John can show an example of members of the scientific community espouse as scientific fact popular speculation>

<Kieck>
Was it science, or the church, that insisted the planet was flat?

Well ya got me there. At one time they were one and the same. I chose an example that comes around about the time they split. Sort of one of those times where someone stood up and said, "Wait! the earth being flat is only an HYPOTHESIS and we haven't formalized it into a THEORY then tested it into FACT! How do we know it is true?" Let's skip this one, I don't want to have to argue about the origins of science...

<Kieck>
Just to play devil's advocate, though, why couldn't a divine being create the world with a "big bang?" Are you sure that the two ideas are contradictory?

Who cares, I'm not here to discuss this. And why indeed?

<Kieck>
(big-bang)this one is up for debate.

and

<Kieck>
"Intelligent design" is about as observable as the "Big Bang." Again, though, do these scientists call it a "scientific fact" or a "scientific theory?"

Well, there are scientist that are sure that their proof removes any possibility of falsifying their theory. They certainly espouse these things as fact. This is a very emotional issue with some folks and some, even some being members of the scientific community, believe these to be fact to the degree that they call it so even if they are unsupported by any scientific reasoning.

<Kieck>
"often" means it happens regularly.

Oh, so now you get to be the definition monger.









<Kieck>
"Often?" By whom? I never said that members of the scientific community are immune to acceptance of popular speculation. I objected to the use of this statement:
>>Popular speculation is often accepted as scientific fact.

Doh! My fault. I didn't read it the same way as you. So, we are ok with this then:

Popular speculation is occasionally accepted as scientific fact, even by members of the scientific community.

<Kieck>
I agree with the position of Jim Fischer's posts.

So then, you agree that anyone who believes that honey bees were on this continent prior to any records is a mush brained twit.

And we all know that mush brained twits are wrong.

<Kieck>
To bring it back to the original issue of the thread...

Well Ok then!

<Chief>
I have been told over and over that honey bees were brought to the new world. I have also heard others on this forum hint that they think they my have been here before that. I tend to think that they may have been here before the white man but I'm just guessing. Does anyone have any strong opinions on this?

Yes, many have strong opinions.

The real question you are asking is whether honeybees existed on the new world prior to being brought by white man.

There is much evidence that says honeybees were brought here. So we do know they were certainly brought here.

There is a little evidence that says they were here already. Some of this is a bit contriversial and some isn't really evidence at all since it is dated post honey bee introduction by travelers.

So far nothing really seems to indicate that honeybees were already here. Were they? Well it sure doesn't look like it and I doubt it.

But the real answer is that nobody knows. It is only a theory. And that is my real life scientific answer.

But I've decided that I believe that the honey bee DID exist on North America prior to the introduction by immigrants. In 1240 BC there was a population of honeybees on vacation in the area we now call Kansas. They suckled the teets of the local gophers and, since milk was not their food, they died. The lizards ate the remains so there can be no record.










JohnF


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I didn't twist it. I looked it up because my memory told me that insects were defined as having 6 legs. (OK, I looked it up again) I have a few definition. One states "...comprising segmented animals that ... have ... a 3-segmented thorax each segment of which bears a pair of legs ...". Another "... including those that have ... includes the Hexapoda, or six-legged insects and the Myriapoda ..." which is different. I'm not sure who's twisting. I'm glad I decided to switch to hexapoda, though.

Where did you get this "definition???" Which "authority" are you using? This doesn't make much sense to me.

How would you classify those four-legged butterflies I keep mentioning? See, they're not hypothetical, they do exist. They naturally have four legs only. For some reason, some genera contain individuals that only have four legs. Under the definition you're using, they're not "insects."

"Hexapoda," by the way, includes some six-legged creatures that some people call insects, some people don't, some people call them "para-insects." In other words, they're close to insects, but not quite insects.

Most systematists and taxonomists (like I keep trying to tell you) rely on suites of characters or traits to make identifications. Think of the case of the four-legged butterflies: they don't have six legs, but they share hundreds of other characteristics with all other insects.

>>That honeybees have six legs is now a fact by definition. If it does not have six legs, it cannot meet our definition of honeybee so it cannot be a honeybee.

It's a "fact?" What if I go out, catch a honey bee, and rip one of her legs off? Is she still a honey bee? If she isn't, what is she? If she is, she's an example of a honey bee that does NOT have six legs.

Let's take your definition above:

>>Scientific fact:
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted 

Please not, in particular, the part about, "any scientific observation." An observation is not the same as a concept. Observations are data. Concepts, or "theories," can be drawn by compiling data and making inferences.

"Insects have six legs." A good example of a theory. Go out at look for an insect. Does it have six legs? Most likely it will. Try the same thing as a fact, though. I find one of those butterflies with only four legs, and I have to refute it.

I think the definitions you posted for facts, theories and hypotheses are pretty good. I think you aren't reading and understanding them completely before applying them, though.  

>>Well, gosh, I even have a diploma that says so! Just so you know, I didn't take just any biology courses, I was one of the few in the "honors" biology courses.

Really? You have a diploma in biology?









Seriously, though, did anyone in one of those courses try to explain the differences among facts, theories and hypotheses?

>>Well, there are scientist that are sure that their proof removes any possibility of falsifying their theory. They certainly espouse these things as fact. 

I'm sure some scientists do believe their data is so supportive of the theory that it precludes any falsifying of their theory. I work and have worked with literally hundreds of scientists, though, and I've never encountered one who feels that his or her data is that strong. Actually, most scientists include words like "generally," "usually," "rarely," etc., to qualify their statements.

I'd guess that you could also find some computer programmers that believe their programs are without fault -- their programs are the best programs ever created, no one will ever improve on them, and the programs will be around forever. I'd also guess that most programmers don't feel that way.

>>Popular speculation is occasionally accepted as scientific fact, even by members of the scientific community.

I'd tweak that just a bit to read:

Popular speculation is occasionally accepted as scientific theory, even by scientists.

Then it's a statement I can agree with!  

>>So then, you agree that anyone who believes that honey bees were on this continent prior to any records is a mush brained twit.

I don't remember Jim saying anything about "mush brained twits," and I certainly don't believe that people who believe honey bees are native to the Americas qualify as mush-brained twits. I don't believe any honey bees were native to the Americas. All of the evidence I've seen (biogeographical, in particular) suggests that the genus Apis was restricted to Afric, Eurasia, and some islands off southeast Asia until European colonists imported A. mellifera to the Americas.

At the same time, I did meet one guy who insists that the world was created only about 150 years ago, so even "Europeans" in his mind were created in North America. Cities, roads, all humans, all animals, created no earlier than about 1850. If you believe similar things, you must believe that A. mellifera was created on all continents at that time.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Isn't the Lakota name for honey bees a compound name?

No, not really. It's a typical Lakota name. Shunkmanitutanka is a wolf. But it's a typical Lakota name that merely distinguishes a Shunkmanitu (coyote) from a wolf (Shunkmanitutanka). The same as Hihan is an owl in general. Hinhansha is a "red owl" which is any horned owl, and Hinhanshatanka "great red owl" is a great horned owl. But Hihan is just owl. Hihansatanka not some other name for some other animal with a different ending or a different animal tacked on, but just a specific type of Hihan.

A Bumble bee is also a "tanka" meaning a large one. Is that a compound name? No, it's just the way things are named. But European brought things are the names of things that were here combined with other things.

>But a honey beeHow do you tell the difference between compound names and "made-up" compound names?

A typical "made up" name is like the monkey which is "dog man". This isn't a smaller dog or a read dog it's a combination of things made up to try to describe something new with the old names.

>Do you (or anyone else) know if any tribes other than some of those in the New England states have a term that translates similarly? 

I do not know a lot of specifics about American Indian languages other than Lakota and the various dialects of it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> but to the Lakota Elders I've talked to 
>Who? 
>Where? 

I sent you a PM.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
Where did you get this "definition???" Which "authority" are you using? This doesn't make much sense to me.

Which one? I showed two. One even uses the word "including" which sort of implies even things without six legs. Like your butterflies.

That confusion is why I stated that I was glad I changed to hexapoda.

<Kieck>
Under the definition you're using, they're not "insects."

Which one? I even stated that there is more than one definition. That's why I was glad I switched to hexapoda for honeybees. I didn't make the switch because of the confusing definitions of insecta, but it is suddenly serving me well.

I would classify them as insects. Just like you.

<Kieck>
"Hexapoda," by the way, includes some six-legged creatures that some people call insects, some people don't, some people call them "para-insects." In other words, they're close to insects, but not quite insects.

That's irrelevant. Honebees are hexapoda and have 6 legs by definition.

<Kieck>
It's a "fact?" What if I go out, catch a honey bee, and rip one of her legs off? Is she still a honey bee? If she isn't, what is she? If she is, she's an example of a honey bee that does NOT have six legs.

Having trouble with distinguishing the general and the specific again I see. We are talking about the species. Right?

But ok, you don't like that logic stuff and we can say "The honeybee is a hexapoda" a definition and then say "It is just a theory that the honeybee has 6 legs".

(Went to PBR tuesday. Flint would hold up a big "W" made with his hands) Whatever...

<Kieck>
Please not, in particular, the part about, "any scientific observation." An observation is not the same as a concept. Observations are data. Concepts, or "theories," can be drawn by compiling data and making inferences.

I didn't make that up! I just cut and paste. I did as you asked. You told me to look it up. Now I am getting spanked for someone elses mistake. I had given my definitions earlier in the post.

<Kieck>
"Insects have six legs." A good example of a theory.

Ok, I thought I showed a definition of insects that even states this to be false. (again with that by definition thing.) Yes, you refuted it. (of course I would have to do some sort of checking to see if in fact there exists a butterfly (species, not individual) with only 4 legs) But bully of a job you've done.

I'm not sure why we can't come to terms with fact by definition.

All hexapoda have 6 legs. This is a priori, it is even in the name.

Honeybees are hexapoda. This is a classification. Part of the definition of honeybee.

Honeybees have six legs. This is a fact by definition.

The above is why I switched to hexapoda by the way.

<Kieck>
I think the definitions you posted for facts, theories and hypotheses are pretty good. I think you aren't reading and understanding them completely before applying them, though. 

Well thanks. That was my own. I had to understand them to write them. You are talking about the somewhat freeform paragraph I hope.

<Kieck>
Really? You have a diploma in biology?

I didn't say I have a diploma in biology, it is a diploma that says I'm a scientist. So it has to be.

<Kieck>
Seriously, though, did anyone in one of those courses try to explain the differences among facts, theories and hypotheses?

Whew, seriously though, if you liked my definitions then you must somehow think that I have a clue of the difference. But seriously, do you have any idea what you are talking about? And seriously, does a person need a course in order to understand?

I am beginning to doubt that you understand the scientific process. Has it been explained to you by a professor?

<Kieck>
I work and have worked with literally hundreds of scientists, though,

Perhaps you could get one to explain it to you then.









<Kieck>
I don't remember Jim saying anything about "mush brained twits,"

Read his statement again and seek the air with which it is presented ... (continued below)

<Kieck>
and I certainly don't believe that people who believe honey bees are native to the Americas qualify as mush-brained twits.

(continuing from above) ... and then imagine what an endorsement of said comment will say about oneself.

<Kieck>
I don't believe any honey bees were native to the Americas. All of the evidence I've seen (biogeographical, in particular) suggests that the genus Apis was restricted to Afric, Eurasia, and some islands off southeast Asia until European colonists imported A. mellifera to the Americas.

Well, that's good. I like it. I can buy this.

<Kieck>
At the same time, I did meet one guy who insists that the world was created only about 150 years ago, so even "Europeans" in his mind were created in North America. Cities, roads, all humans, all animals, created no earlier than about 1850. If you believe similar things, you must believe that A. mellifera was created on all continents at that time.

And this too stands up to a quick looking over with a scientific eye. I particularly like that the last sentence includes its assumption. There is logic here I proclaim.

<Kieck>
Popular speculation is occasionally accepted as scientific theory, even by scientists.

Then it's a statement I can agree with!

But wait, we can simplify:

Popular theory is occasionally accepted, even by scientists.
Popular theory is occasionally accepted.
Theory is occasionally accepted.

There, now we've milked it to death and it doesn't mean anything anymore.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks for the info, Michael! I always value your explanations, even at times that when I don't entirely agree with your opinions. 

I this case, I especially appreciate you taking time to clarify. I had previously assumed that t'uh'mun'ga tunkce was a compound name composed of t'uh'mun'ga (meaning "bee") and tunkce (meaning "honey," or some other concept). If I'm interpreting your last post correctly, the Lakota name for honey bee is really more of a conceptual term than a literally-translated, compound name?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>All hexapoda have 6 legs. This is a priori, it is even in the name.

You still go back to that statement. The four-legged butterflies are hexapods (in fact, they belong to Insecta sensu strictu, not just Hexapoda). So NOT all hexapoda have six legs.

(See, that's the reason I have problems with some of your flat statements.)

>>And seriously, does a person need a course in order to understand?

No. A person does not need a formal course to gain an understanding. 

What I've been trying to understand is why you're arguing about biological terms -- especially arguing about the ways biologists should use those terms -- if you're not a trained biologist? You don't like the terms biologists agree on? Fine, create your own. Just don't expect most biologists to comply with your definitions.

>>I am beginning to doubt that you understand the scientific process.

I won't bother to explain it in detail to you. I work in this field. I receive grants to work in this field. In fact, all of the money I that I use in research (including my salary) comes from grant money. Those other scientists must feel that I have a reasonable understanding of the scientific process.


>>Read his statement again and seek the air with which it is presented ... and then imagine what an endorsement of said comment will say about oneself.

I do believe that people who summarily claim that honey bees are native to the Americas and reject all the evidence to the contrary must have some other motive in mind. Maybe an "endorsement" of the comment was or is too much, but how seriously do you take Jim's comment?

>>Popular theory is occasionally accepted, even by scientists.
Popular theory is occasionally accepted.
Theory is occasionally accepted.

Why would we change "speculation" to "theory?" The two terms, for a scientific perspective, are vastly different. If you wrote, instead, "Speculation is occasionally accepted," I would agree with the end statement, too, although I think your last statement says more than you believe.

"Theory is occasionally accepted." I can name a few theories that are generally accepted -- gravity, aerodynamics, etc., but some along the same line (evolution, for instance) that are less generally accepted.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> I receive grants to work in this field. In fact, all of the money I that I use in research (including my salary) comes from grant money.

.... and are you receiving your salary when you are conversing and debating over BeeSource? Is any of that grant money from our tax dollars?









[ January 13, 2006, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>.... and are you receiving your salary when you are conversing and debating over BeeSource? Is any of that grant money from our tax dollars? 

Good question, but no, I'm not receiving my salary for time I'm spending on BeeSource. Yes, some of that grant money comes from tax dollars, but probably not your tax dollars, Dick!









By the way, I take no offense to comments like that. Anyone should be accountable, including those in private businesses, for what they do.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
The four-legged butterflies are hexapods...

Oh, you only said they were insecta.

Hexapoda - <zoology> The true, or six-legged, insects; insects other than myriapods and arachnids.

(that is a cut and paste)

No wonder there is so much confusion in your world. Things don't even mean what they say they mean.

You are right, if there are no definitions then there can be no facts by definition.

<Kieck>
What I've been trying to understand is why you're arguing about biological terms -- especially arguing about the ways biologists should use those terms -- if you're not a trained biologist? You don't like the terms biologists agree on? Fine, create your own. Just don't expect most biologists to comply with your definitions.

Ahh grasshopper, it is so much less the terms and so much more the formation of logic. I don't know all of these terms and you keep forcing me to look them up, or haven't you gathered that yet.

Your statements in the name of science are guilty of much logical hocus pocus. Context shifting being a favorite of yours.

I don't have to be a trained biologist to see flaws in logic if I go to the effort of looking up the terms. Terms are important, definitions are important, and logic is important.

Are you a scientist or not? Where is it that you display your power of reason? How can you express it if not for logic?

I keep looking up the terms and formulating arguments based on them. If my definitions are wrong, then state it.

<Kieck>
I receive grants to work in this field.

And I should believe that you know what you are talking about, why? Because someone that doesn't know what you are talking about gives you money? Maybe because when you get to your job you put on a white lab coat.

<Kieck>
I do believe that people who summarily claim that honey bees are native to the Americas and reject all the evidence to the contrary must have some other motive in mind.

You see, there can be no evidence to the contrary. This is the problem with proving a negative. Now please understand what I am doing here, I am not arguing with you whether honeybees are native, I am pointing out that your statement is flawed. There can be no evidence to the contrary. Even if you prove that honeybees where something that you and I cooked up in a pot on my kitchen stove just yesterday! Someone will ask, yeah, so prove they weren't here before...

I am suggesting that you concentrate on positives because they are provable. This is one of those science axioms thingies.

<Kieck>
Maybe an "endorsement" of the comment was or is too much, but how seriously do you take Jim's comment?

Serious or not it will have an effect. Is it the effect you wish?

I actually took Jim's comment rather seriously, enough to chide him on it. I saw a TV debate between some scientist (a physicist from some national labratory) and a pro-intellectual design guy (PIDG). In the same manner as Jim, this scientist's rebuttal to the PIDG was something to the effect of "You can't possibly believe this!"

That bodes well for scientists in general and certainly makes the proof. NOT!

<Kieck>
Why would we change "speculation" to "theory?" The two terms, for a scientific perspective, are vastly different.

speculation : A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.

theory : Abstract reasoning; speculation:

(Ok, that one's not fair, you said scientific perspective







)

speculation : Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

I'll guess you are using something along these lines. And, I'll have to tell you that to do the simplification I did, that I make the assumption that the subject is "when describing observable physical behavour".

Then the words are the same, even for a scientific perspective. (Well, especially for a scientific perspective, since that is the assumption.)

But the point of the simplification was to show how we can use redefinition and redirection to squash a thought until there is much ado about nothing. You redefined the phrase until it fit you.

I do see that you have a hard time with the word fact. You gave an example of a fact, an expression of some observation I recall.

If you hand that to me and declare it a fact should I accept it as such? If I ask you, "where did you get it?", have I not pushed it into the realm of theory and began a process to attempt to falsify it? Who, When... all tests to see if it is falsifiable? And when you first hand it to me, isn't it?

I shall then declare your example of a fact merely a theory.

JohnF


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

Oh and I forgot to mention, in philosophical discourse it is common for a speaker to include the definition that they mean.

Sometime you will see stuff like: The defining characteristic of property is human effort.

Followed by some elaboration or example if needed.

I was aware that there must be some other definition of insecta since you keep eluding to such with the butterfly. You should just slammajamma that baby right out there for the world to see. Discussion goes nowhere if we don't agree on the terms. Looking them up and posting what I find is the best I can do.

By the way, does some form of that butterfly have six legs? I think that whole idea of hexapoda is broken but that's just probably me wanting things to mean what they say they mean.

Believe me, philosophical debate can get mired in logical attacks so most folks just slam the definitions at the beginning and then make their statement.

JohnF


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> I'll list the species that belong in the genus of honey bees (Apis) that I know about right now. I could miss a few. Please add to it if someone knows of more extant species:
> 
> Apis mellifera
> A. cerana
> ...


Actually quite a few were missed. Michener--The Bees of the World-- lists over 130 species of bee in the genus Apis.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

uh-oh...once again i must stand corrected. the species of the genus apis that michener lists in his book, while indeed a large number, include those from very early classifications going back to the 1700's. so, it looks as though my previous post is (gulp) WRONG. oh well....


----------



## SantaCruzBee (Apr 23, 2004)

Just for the record, there are magnificent stone edifices built by the Anasazi in the four corners area. They are considered the ancestors of the present day Hopi.

For that matter, Mexico is considered part of the North American continent and is not Central America, that's the countries further south. I believe, but I'm too lazy to look it up, that poinsettias are native to Mexico, so no European introduced them.


----------



## SantaCruzBee (Apr 23, 2004)

One last thing, trade amongst Native Americans of Mexico and those peoples living in the present day USA involved the exchange of many goods and commodities. Corn (maize) originated in Mexico, but was long since a part of the Native American diet all the way up the Northeast coast at the time of the landing of the pilgrims. Luxury commodities from Mexico have been found in Anasazi ruins, including the remains of macaws and robes made of macaw feathers produced in Mexico. Macaws never lived naturally in the USA.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Ok guys, I'm pretty inpressed with the insect information, hats off!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Sometime you will see stuff like: The defining 
> characteristic of property is human effort.

Sorry, the correct definition would be:
"The defining characteristic of property is theft".


----------



## miele (Sep 17, 2005)

Isn't the "six legs" definition of Insecta, or Hexapoda, really more of a lay person's definition, while the scientists definition would be something more like "all of the organisms most closely related to {insert name of most basal Genus of hexapods} and their most common ancestor {insert sytematics jargon}" or something along those lines?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>Isn't the "six legs" definition of Insecta, or Hexapoda, really more of a lay person's definition, while the scientists definition would be something more like "all of the organisms most closely related to {insert name of most basal Genus of hexapods} and their most common ancestor {insert sytematics jargon}" or something along those lines? 

Sure, something like that. I think most people talk about "insects," rather than "Insecta." JohnF made a comment earlier, too, about my lack of "definitions" of Hexapoda and Insecta, or maybe "distinctions" would be more appropriate.

Hexapoda includes all the "six-legged" arthropods (a LOT more characters are used to group these creatures together, but a grossly simplified explanation will work with only the "six-legged" part). See, "Hexapoda" literally means "six legged" or "six feet." Insecta, on the other hand, only includes the "true insects." Insecta is more specific than Hexapoda. Hexapoda includes groups like diplurans and collembolans and proturans, orders that don't fit into Insecta because of the differences between these orders and Insecta in mouthparts, body segmentation, etc. Diplura, Collembola and Protura all fit into Hexapoda, but not into Insecta, and sometimes these three orders get called "Parainsecta" because they're "close" to being insects. (It seems like I mentioned some of this before, but it might have gotten lost in some of the other jumble.)


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
Sure, something like that.

Uhm, no.









Ok, a little more serious now.

Sure, there can be many definitions of words used by any two people. For the purposes of discussion we need only agree on which one we are using or else we have a tough time exchanging information. I used "six legged" as my definition of hexapoda in my proof.

I think I'll add a tag line to my persona.

JohnF


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

Just checking...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I used "six legged" as my definition of hexapoda in my proof.

And, for the most part, I can agree with that. However, like I tried to point out, some orders of six-legged arthropods are not insects.

>>For the purposes of discussion we need only agree on which one we are using or else we have a tough time exchanging information.

I agree. But if systematists generally agree on a description of Hexpoda, and you use the term differently than those systematists, why should I switch to your definition?

Why are you jumping in on this anyway? Miele wanted a clarification of the differences between Hexapoda and Insecta. Your "definition" is different than systematists' descriptions, so what purpose does it serve here?


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
...like I tried to point out...

You did point out. We were arguing about whether or not it is a fact that honeybees have six legs, though, not the difference between hexapoda and insecta.

<Kieck>
why should I switch to your definition?

You don't have to switch to mine. We just have to agree on one.

<Kieck>
Why are you jumping in on this anyway? Miele wanted a clarification of the differences between Hexapoda and Insecta. Your "definition" is different than systematists' descriptions, so what purpose does it serve here?

He didn't ask what a systematists definition was, only asked if there could be a difference and sort of implied that you and I may perhaps be arguing from different perspectives.

I was just answering him with a "sure can" and "we sure might be." [And I thought you had too!]

Anyway, I thought we had agreement and closure.


----------



## Mabe (Mar 22, 2005)

I'm reading "Bees In America - How The Honey Bee Shaped A Nation" by Tammy Horn. It was just published and is a fascinating history of the honey bee in this country from its introduction to now. Lots of references to the responses by native Indians. There are 55 pages of sources cited in the back of the book which means she used just about everything written about the honey bee since its appearance on this continent. By the way, she's also a beekeeper so one might take her a bit more seriously than a straight researcher.

The sad reality is that the imported honey bee contributed to our growth to a world power by allowing agriculture to explode in America. Sad because of the current state of apiculture and the too few people that get the significance of a future without honey bees. (My words, not Miss Horns).


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I met Ms. Horn this last summer and asked her about the "white man's flies" reference but she only had the typical info about Jefferson and those who then repeated that. She couldn't shed any light or provide another source. She seems to be a very inteligent and very nice person.


----------



## miele (Sep 17, 2005)

I was referring to the fact that although "Hexapoda" may literally mean "six legs", it doesn't mean that everything in Hexapoda has to have 6 legs. It may be a character shared by most Hexapoda, or a characteristic of the common ancestor of all Hexapoda, but butterflies can be hexapods that have "lost" 2 of their legs. 

My real point is that there must be a specific scientifically accepted definition for both Insecta and Hexapoda- one that leaves no room for argument.

Yes, agreement and closure are good. I don't want this to turn into a Tailgater-type thread! Sorry I brought it up again.


----------



## DChap (Oct 19, 2005)

Joel, well said.


Blessed be
Doug


----------

