Talk:Africanized bee/Archive 1

Archive 1

Selective breeding vs. natural selection

Changed paragraph regarding evolution of aggressiveness/defensiveness of African (not Africanized) bees. Previous version emphasized human actions over environmental forces; replaced "selective breeding" with "natural selection". JHCC 20:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Selective Breeding is a good thing Look we can get a very superior bee if we gentled down the Africanized bee but not to much since the anger management issue of the Africanized bee makes it what it is. So breeding is okay but let some of the bad selections escape into the wild so that they can turn into a new style of bees so there is a greater but significantly wider choice for beekeepers.

Telioty 20:02(GMT) 30 October 2006

Absolutely NO sources

This subject matter is one of hype and rumor and all information here is without a single source. I would recommend a verify flag --Kim Nevelsteen 17:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summaries in the page history, I think you'll see that quite a bit of this is definitively sourced. Furthermore, I can tell you from personal knowledge that this page is actively watched and edited by several very experienced and well-informed professional beekeepers and bee researchers. I won't try to defend every single element of the article but to say that there are no sources is an overstatement.

Since you apparently have concerns, let me ask you to be specific. Which elements of this article concern you? Rossami (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine

I think this article should have more historical detail about the fear of killer bees in America. Also, the article could mention Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which spends at least 15 minutes talking about killer bee panic. 130.132.198.46 07:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)nitwitpicker

“(AHB)”

I question the value of “(AHB)” in this article. Normally, such a note is used to define an term or abbreviation for future use later in the work. In the case of this article, “AHB” appears exactly and only in that parenthetical note. —Gamahucheur 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviations, like aliases, are also sometimes defined so that readers can recognize them in other contexts. In dedicated beekeeping circles, the use of the abbreviation AHB is very common. (Scan the BEE-L archives, for example.) It also serves as an explanation for why the disambiguation page AHB points to this page. Rossami (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

moved from top of the page

Please Post a photo of this animal! Trying to Identify a nest in the back yard

Africanized honeybees are visually indistinguishable from European honeybees. (There are some differences in the size and shape of the wings but it requires careful and specialized measurements.)

I think you really want to check out Characteristics of common wasps and bees which has pictures of several common members of this family. Rossami (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assassin Bees

Is the assassin hypothesis accepted by scientists as fact? The article isn't clear. It calls it lore, but then substatiates the claim with facts. Has assassin behavior actually been observed?Mhklein 04:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple Bee Control

I have been very successful in eradicating several bee colonies on my property. The first one was a large hive in an enclosed ceiling over my deck. It was about six feet by nine feet by six inches. I came up with a simple idea to get rid of them. I put the nozzle of a shop vac right at the entrance. All the bees came out to defend the nest and were promptly sucked in. All the bees out in the field came in and tried to attack the offending hazard to the nest and were also sucked up. After about two hours there was no further activity. While the nozzle was in place the bees were not interested in anything but the entrance to the hive. No one got stung and no bees came afterwards. There was about five gallons of dead bees in the canister.

I have eradicated several other hives in the same manner. It has worked on hives of all kinds and sizes I have encountered. It has occurred to me that for larger nests, a vactor truck could even be used.

Although I have no reason to believe the bees I used it on were Africanized, I suspect that being even more aggressive, they would be just as likely to attack the offending nozzle as a priority to defend the nest, if not more so.

The method is selective in that it targets only the specific hive and is pretty much eco-friendly. No poisons, no innocent victims. It's also cheap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FAMiller (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Professionals will sometimes use a variation of that technique as a start but tend not to use it as the only means to remove the colony. First, it will only remove the guard bees. The queen, some nurse bees and whatever field bees were out of the nest when you do your vacuuming will still be left and might be able to reestablish the colony. Second, if the colony was inside the walls of a structure (like the siding of a house) and if you are successful at killing off the colony you still have a sticky mess inside the walls. The honey and rotting larvae will attract other pests, some of which are much worse than the bees. The moisture in the walls is also really hard on plaster and drywall.

By the way, I've never heard of a colony of honeybees that could support 5 gallons of bees. A really healthy swarm might be a gallon or so - the full colony no more than double that. If you really had a colony that productive, then it was a shame to have to kill them. Are you sure it was honeybees? Rossami (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

They almost certainly were not honeybees, but were instead probably yellowjacket wasps. In most of the US (especially rural areas) it is normal to call the latter "bees". Dyanega 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrival in Florida

According to the The Sun-Sentinal flash presentation, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-edge-n-bee,0,6105613.flash?coll=sfla-home-headlines, Africanized bees arrived in Florida in 2002. I changed the article to reflect this and added the flash as an external link.Chegitz guevara 17:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Assasin bees

Leonard (or anyone else), can you cite references for your paragraph on "assassin" bees? When they were first released in the Americas, this was the story that went around, but, as I recall, it was later determined to be more myth than fact. Please support this, if it is really true. (Also placed on Leonard's talk page)Pollinator 21:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I had a long discussion with our local international bee expert - a retired engineer and beekeeper, he has traveled to South Africa and Brazil and is well aquainted with both bee lore and bee facts. I have rewritten the paragraph to couch it as lore, rather than fact, and have substatiated the lore with supporting facts - facts provided by to me by this expert. Leonard G. 03:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

If there is an assasin bee I would vote for wasp or hornets even though they aren't bees (most non bee-keepers don't know much of the difference any way) but the Apis Scutellata are a more aggresive defensive bee than any thing and also want more land to get food just like the conquers of America in the 15 century.

Telioty 20:09 30 October 2006

Google Scholar search turns up absolutely nothing about "assassin bee." Even if it were pure folklore, shouldn't it be mentioned in some journal, somewhere? I don't think that section is accurate at all, and an interview with a bee expert is "original research," anyway. Delete?

Actually, having worked in Brazil and Panama, beekeepers there do call them assassin bees, and the lore about them sneaking into hives does exist. The "evidence" that Leonard G. supplied is, however, unsubstantiated and/or contraindicated, so all of that has been removed now, along with the flag. Dyanega 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Difference from african bees

I remember seeing a TV program maybe 10 years ago that had an interview with the original scientist (I think) behind the original south american experiment. My memory is a bit hazy, but I seem to remember him saying that the term "africanized" is a misnomer because they have very little honey bee in them. He was saying this was a large reason why the experiment was becoming unsuccussful. When an african queen hatches, it immediately kills all other larvae queens. African bees also had much shorter growth time than their European cousins. The queen with the least honey bee heritage would be the first to hatch and form the new colony. Trying to introduce honey bee into the african lines was extremely difficult and met with very little success. The impression (again, 10 years ago) that I got from the program was that AHB are really just pure african bees, and there's very little "hybrid" about them. Obviously I've remembered this for 10 years pretty well, so it left an impact on me. But I haven't heard anything like this since, on TV or in print. Killer bees are always described as a "hybrid between african and european bees". I'd dismiss this old TV program from my memory except the source was about as primary as I can imagine finding, and the reasoning seems sound enough to my bee-ignorant mind. I'm just wondering if anyone can back up my memory or dispute it with something in print (a genetic study maybe?). --Numsgil 09:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This argument with the smaller growing time of the african queens seems logical. On the other side have the Brazilian beekeepers very busy bees and are earning a lot of honey. This is not a feature of a tropical bee, is a typical feature of for example the Apis mellifera ligustica. --MikePhobos 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried looking on the wiki page for the african bee, but the term stub would be generous. My impression was that the african bee actually produces [i]more[/i] honey than the European honey bee. European bees were preffered only because they are considerably tamer. The goal of the original experiment was to breed a bee with the prolific honey making abilities of the african bee with the docile nature of the honey bee. --Numsgil 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this. It says "Genetics research has shown that the large wild AHB population is composed of unbroken African mother lines extending back to the queen bees originally brought to Brazil. As the wild AHB population expanded and encountered managed European bees, matings occurred between them. European queen bees from managed apiaries mated readily with wild African drones, and the "Africanized" progeny inherited and expressed the African characteristics, including highly defensive stinging. However, few matings between wild African queens and European drones seemed to have occurred, and, to a large extent, the few hybrid progeny produced appear not to have persisted. Superior adaptation to the tropics is probably largely responsible for preserving the African genetic composition." Seems to be saying that while some managed bee colonies can become "africanized" with hybrids, they don't survive in the wild. --Numsgil 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

o.k. thanks for your arguments and the link to the information from the University of Florida. I think all this arguments might be true and africanized bees can only exist under the combination of managed apiaries (with European queens) and wild african drone bees. The higher honey production of the Brazilian bees could have two causes: First a richer flora (and a more flower offering over the whole year) at the tropic region than in Europe und second the heterosis effect of that hybrid bees.

Sorry, my Englich is to bad to improve this en.WP article, but I will add all this facts to the article of the German WP. Greetings --MikePhobos 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Varroa resistance?

Can anyone fill in "resistance to varoa mite" in this article 20:41, 23 September 2007 125.239.172.95 European honeybees are more susceptible to the virus Varroa in comparison to the Africanized or even purely African bee. THe more hybridization lessens the vulnerability to the virus among bees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.179.59 (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The "In popular culture" section has become unmanagable

The "In popular culture" section of this article has gradually become an unsorted, undifferentiated list itemizing every random reference to the phrase "Killer bee". Wikipedia is explicitly not about such unprioritized lists. If someone can suggest a rationale basis for deciding which examples are appropriate to include and which are mere trivia, please feel free to refactor the list. Or even better, write actual prose about their impact on society.

In the meantime, I have merged most of the useful references to Killer bees (disambiguation). Rossami (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody substantiate the claim in the article that there are more deaths from bees (bees mind you, not wasps) than poisionous snakes in the US?

Gracious! 97.126.131.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

Why not show a picture of the bee

1. It looks so nearly identical to the European bees that it takes either a complex series of measurements under a microscope, or a DNA analysis, to determine which is which. In other words, you can't tell the difference in a picture. 2.-An alternative answer -- if I ever get back to an Africanized bee area, Wikipedia WILL have a picture. The last time I was there, I did not have the capacity for closeup photos. Pollinator 18:35, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

If a picture of an actual killer bee cannot be found, a screen capture of John Belushi portraying one on SNL would probably suffice, especially here in Wikiland Jmdeur (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Accidental?

An anonymous user wrote:

 (Some scientist believe the release was not accidental.)

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide a little more substantiation than that to support the allegation. I am a hobbyist beekeeper, intensely interested in the topic, follow multiple journals and have never heard even a hint of this assertion. (Your other suggestion for wording is a good point. Edit made.) Rossami 20:42, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I actually just read a primary source that indicated that the bees were introduced into Brazil intentionally for the reason being to mate with the European bee (who was not producing substantially enough honey). See Africanization in the UNited States: Replacement of the Feral European Honeybees by an African Hybrid Swarm (M. Alice Pinto, WIlliam L. Rubink, John C. Patton, Robert N. Coulson, and J. Spencer Johnston). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.179.59 (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You mis-read that source. No one has ever claimed the bees were not BROUGHT to Brazil on purpose, in order to produce hybrids. The RELEASE of the bees into the WILD was accidental. There is a huge difference between the two, which you have missed entirely. Dyanega 06:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the sentences regarding the removal of excluders, since in their previous form they made an error of fact, namely that drones mate with queens in the colony. As any beekeeper will tell you, drones and queens mate high in the air. The excluders were put on the fronts of the nucleus hives to keep both the African queens and drones from flying, and therefore mating with non-African queens and drones from the surrounding area. Excluders do not differentiate between queens and drones, even though they are typically called "queen" excluders. The size of abdomen of both queens and drones is too big to allow them to pass thorugh the gaps between the wires or holes of the excluder. Drhive (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Affected by current die-offs?

Are the Africanized bees affected by the current die-offs affecting honeybees? GBC May 2/07

The current die-off affects managed bees (which excludes Afrcanized), and is reported almost exclusively in areas where there are no killer bees. So far, the die-off seems to relate to beekeeping practices and colony management more than anything else, and if it doesn't happen again next fall, we may never know for certain. But I have yet to hear any reports of wild bees experiencing any problems. Dyanega 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, we'll only have the Africanized bees left once all the managed bees die off. Is this true that somehow the Africanized bees will eventually develop a niche in the world once the other bee species go extinct? GVnayR (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From Today's 60 minutes (feb. 24 2008), the die-off is similar for the 2007 fall. 71.215.143.179 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On their expansion

I read somewhere that killer bees will never go above the southern 1/3 of the USA, but I just read here that they may be able to survive winter climates. You see, I live up in New England, and I'd like to know if they'll ever get up here. Personally, I'd be more comfortable with Cobras living here than killer bees living here. Sgt. Bond 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd urge you to read up on the actual behaviors of Africanized honeybees. The name "killer bee" is far more media hype than reality. Mexico, for example, is not in danger of being depopulated just because the Africanized honeybees have driven out essentially all the European honeybees. Beekeepers have to adapt their management techniques but still many beekeepers still keep bees in fully Africanized areas.

As another point of reference, Africanized bees are about as aggressive as yellowjackets. (Arguably, less aggressive but it depends who you talk to.) More people die each year from yellowjacket stings than all the deaths ever traced to Africanized honebees. Yellowjacket nests are common all across North America but you never hear about them.

Your core question, though, was whether you will see Africanized bees in New England. Africanized bees are still generally thought to have more trouble overwintering than European strains in areas with long, cold winters. Because they are more likely to abscond (find a new home part-way through the summer, which means abandoning any stores they've built up so far), they tend to go into winter with less stores. They also tend to consume their stores at different rates through the winter than the other races of bees. So unless they are artificially supported (with supplemental food or a particularly protected micro-climate), I would not expect to see an Africanized colony survive up north on a regular basis. But the research on that is still being developed. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that reassures me a bit more. I did also read that the term "killer bee" was just hype. However, whether bee or wasp, I am very afraid of stinging insects due to being stung by one in the 1st grade. Now that I know more than I did then, I guess I'm more afraid of wasps (also hornets & yellowjackets because I know that bees produce useful items such as honey (mmmm...honey) & beeswax, but I know of no useful items produced by wasps. Seriously, what good have wasps done us, eh? Name me at least 1 useful item produced by wasps (besides paper, because I don't think paper wasps actually produce paper). P.S., Wikipedia rules! You're the man, Jimbo! Sgt. Bond 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

During the spring and early summer, most wasps are predators, keeping the population of many other insects under control. Some of those other insects are harmful to humans or to crops. At other points in their lives, wasps are pollinators of certain plants - sometimes very specialized pollinators and no other insect will do. So, yes, wasps do perform a useful service to humans. (But I still don't want them building their nest in the walls of my house.) Rossami (talk)

I know this is irrelevant and OT, but paper wasps do make paper. Just like we do. But they don't perforate it and roll it up for convenient use by humans. Huw Powell 02:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can they freeze and survive? One winter some students at my school (years ago) had found some frozen bees. (Boston area) they were laying motionless in the snow. The girls started to gather them up in a small cup and took them inside to show the teachers, they set the cup down and literally all of the bees came back to life and started flying around the music room. The teachers vacated the room and opened the outside door so the bees would fly out. Can the African Bee actually handle being frozen too? CaribDigita (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Africanized bee vs African bee

This article uses the terms "Africanized bee" and "African bee" seemingly haphazardly. It is strange that "African bee" is mentioned 26 times and "Africanized bee", which is the subject of this article, is used only four times. It seems that often one term is used where the other is meant. Ezeu (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of those are correct usages, saying "African" with the specific intent to refer to the parent lineage which did originate in Africa. Others are grammatically correct variants - that is, "African hybrid honey bee" has the same meaning as "Africanized honey bee" and is interchangable. There are some other instances, however, where I agree with you that the usage is ambiguous and should be corrected. Be bold and take a stab at it. Rossami (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Stinger

Do the stingers of these bees detach like other honey bees? 76.28.141.159 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

wikihow says that their stingers do detach, and explains that the way to get stingers out is by scraping them sideways with like a credit card. Tweezers is a bad idea. The thing with killer bees, right, is that they send a ton of bees at you and chase your longer distances.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a wiki article listing cases of people killed by killer bees ?

I think it would help people if they realized it was mostly old people and little kids. We have all sorts of lists and links for serial killers - and yes, they are much more of a threat - but as long as we're seeking to keep the public informed, why not give people an idea of who gets killed by killer bees ? And can there be a link to the wikihow article on how to avoid attack and escape from attacking killer bees ? It looks like a great article.

Also, I want to put thanks out there for the lists and links on the serial killers - I think people like me are a lot safer knowing this and that about the cases etc.

It seems not that many people are so worried about it as there aren't lists of deaths for killer bee victims. But if a one or two people die a year of it, and it wouldn't take terribly much time to assemble a list, I hope someone can do it. Aren't there any entomologists out there willing to take a couple hours and add something ?

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Human Defense?

I'd like to see safety precautions and recommendations if one is attacked. Is "run like hell" the best solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tablizer (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As with all stinging insects, the proper response is to not beat on their hive in the first place.
Your question is based on the false stereotype that Africanized bees are more dangerous than, say, the average nest of yellowjackets. Africanized bees are somewhat more defensive than the traditional European honeybees but still less than most other stinging species.
If you do manage to rile them up, then as with all stinging insects, the best reaction is to walk away. They are defending the hive. Once you are no longer perceived as a threat, they will ignore you. (Remember, however, that when you get stung, the bee releases an alarm pheromone which attracts other bees so you may have to go some distance. Or you can use the beekeepers' trick of obscuring the pheromone with smoke.) If pursued, you can spray them down with a hose. Wet bees and wasps can't fly.
None of that answer belongs in this article, though, because it's true for all stinging insects, not unique to Africanized honeybees. Rossami (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

EG, dont piss them off and, yes, run like hell. 24.187.19.109 (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions

This is not one of the best articles on Wikipedia. It's not horrible but it could certainly be expanded and improved.

1. The spelling of africanized/africanized should be unified to a unique spelling: British or American.

2. "The popular term 'Killer bee' has only limited scientific meaning today because there is no generally accepted fraction of genetic contribution used to establish a cut-off."

This is nonsense.

3. "One problem with this test is that there are also others subspecies, the first Americas naturalized Apis mellifera iberiensis with shorter wings too, is having from ancient hybridated haplotypes that presents six different lineages, five of them correspond to evolutionary lineages from Africa."

This one doesn't make sense either.

4. "those that were at the "vanguard" were over 90% African mtDNA"

There is no indication or explanation of what "vanguard" means.

5. The article uses the acronym "AHB" which probably stands for Africanized honey bee. The acronym is confusing until spelled out.

6. "In addition, there was formerly no tradition of beekeeping, only bee robbing."

What's the connection between the above sentence and the rest of the paragraph? None I would say (therefore it should be eliminated).

7. In the article, it appears as if African and Africanized are used interchangeably. This is wrong and it needs to be avoided and corrected.

ICE77 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not erradicate them?

If they are so dangerous why not gas them? I can't imagine it being that hard to create a chemical weapon tailored specifically to kill them. I'm sure we have something like that already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lengis (talk • contribs).

1. They are not that dangerous. The media makes money playing to people's fears but choose to ignore that many people successfully live side-by-side with Africanized bees (first in Africa and for decades now in Central America). They are somewhat more aggressive than European honeybees but still less aggressive than your average yellowjacket.
2. Anything you use to kill them wholesale will also inevitably kill beneficial insects. It is actually incredibly hard to create a chemical weapon that is narrowly targeted. Most chemicals affect entire phyla. It is virtually impossible to develop something targeted to a single species.
   • To make matters much worse, remember that you're not even trying to narrow to a single species - you are talking about a single race. It would be like trying to find something to affect German Shepherds but not Labrador Retrievers.
3. Any chemical weapon of that sort will also do drastic harm to other animals (including humans). See, for example, the lessons of DDT.

   Rossami (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have some points, but I should correct you on DDT. DDT has never been known to be toxic to humans. They even conducted a test where a group of people injested a certain amount of the chemical every day for about a year or so. No side effects occured at all.

My example was unclear. My point was that such chemicals have demonstrated significant unintended consequences in other animals (of which, humans may or may not be one). The toxicity of DDT to raptors and fish is well documented. Rossami (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, DDT has caused harmful side effects to birds of prey, and fish. But it's also a fact that DDT saved the lives of millions of people due to the culling of mosquito populations in the countries it was used in, and as a result, cases of malaria went down drastically. If the goal justifies the means, then the negative aspects are negligible. Also they offer great breeding potential. Telioty 20:05 30 October 2006

1. African hybrid bees are preferable in temperate climates: they defend the hive more effectively against pests like the European wasp and the Varroa (and possibly other) mites (and some people would say, against casual thieves!). To handle them takes only a little more care, like using gaffer tape to seal gaps in your protective suit, such as ends of zip's and cuffs! I have taken pictures from about 10 - 15 m while a group of hives was having frames removed, with no smoke or any other action to pacify them. I had only one bee chase me (I was wearing jeans and a T-shirt), then I returned afterwards. It was noisy, though! They are not suitable for a suburban hive, and personally, I think that any beekeeping is not appropriate where the hives are within 100 m of a house, anyway.Paul 8ain 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)(from the real world)

This isn't the place to suggest specicide. If you want something done about it, ask someone with authority over wildlife, not an online encyclopedia. ~SkyWulf 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)--Mediarion (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think, this talk should be sweeped and tidied up. May I?

Obviously many users don't read all posts before typing their own comment, leading to many repetitions.

There is quite some talk without noticable reference to the article nor the subject.

The article is long. The talk is even longer. The mess can hardly be effective for improving the article. I recommend arranging the talk according to articles structure like:

Structure (Table of content)

alternative arrangement suggestion

1. Introduction/Overview/abstract
2. TOC
3. History
   1. breeding experiments
   2. Escape and Spread

. . .

Geographic Spread

. . . .

Overall Quality Remarks

unspecified

Feel free to just ad your signature if you share someones opinion.Mediarion (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The new foraging behavior section

Hello all- I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I am editing content as part of a undergraduate level class project at Washington University in St. Louis on behavioral ecology. I have added a relatively small section on foraging behavior. I am still reformatting the references and will get that problem fixed soon (you may have noticed there are 5 new references to the same journal article.) Thank you and let me know what you think of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruthapk (talk • contribs) 05:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting for the references. Amruthapk (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

guideline what to do

I have found no information concerning "education of the general public to teach them how to properly react when feral colonies are encountered" even though the need for such information is mentioned in the last paragraph(Impact on existing apiculture/Gentle africanized bee) of the article. I belive this kind of information would be of interest if it could be included in the article. 84.236.14.122 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

after reading the talkpage I see, this same info was requested earlier. it may be debatable, whether such "useful tactics/approach" belongs to the article, but for two reasons I would belive it rather does:1) it is one thing that the layman wants to know among first things concerning a dangerous species that has some hystery/hype about it, 2) it is mentioned (in the last paragraph) as an information that should be spread for the general public - so it is a justified urge from the reader to want to see it after it's importance is underlined in such a way. 84.236.14.122 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

editing

Hello, I have added a few sources to this article as well as some more information about bee sting side effects, gentle bees, and honey production. Acaill6 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"hundreds of deaths"

NOne of this actually true The sentence below has been in this article since Feb 2003. I recently tried to find a citation for this statement and have so far been unable to do so. I've reworded the sentence and removed the reference to "hundreds" pending a citation. Rossami (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Over the decades, hundreds of deaths in the Americas have been attributed to them, many resulting from multiple bee stings.

However there is no evidence of an increased rate of "death by bee sting" in areas where Africanized Bees are common now vs historic evidence in the same area or areas that don't have these bees at all. Human behavior or an unreported allergy are likely the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.233.24 (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a question

I was told by someone (a professor I think) that the term "africanized" may be offensive to some people. I don't know if this is the case, but since I came not only to learn about the bee, but also to find out if there was indeed such a controversy, could someone who knows more about the subject address this question? Otherwise, I think this is a very good article. Keep up the good work! 64.122.82.126 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

it is completely offensive as there is little valid science supporting that these bees are any worse then other varieties. Even the aggression seems to be the result of a healthier/large colony rather than the European bees being less likely to attack. In modern times traditional varieties of honey bees often have failing colonies for various reasons. People randomly started demonizing them and using the term "Africanized" as if anything from that continent is more aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.233.24 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Africanized bee. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/plantinsp/apiary/ahbgroup/actionplan.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

More Productive?

Numerous sites on the web seem to indicate that Africanized Bees produce less honey, not more. Does anyone know the definitive answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.79.236 (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an agronomist and I live in Brazil.No other bee is so productive, as this bee.Brazilian bee keepers can chose any kind of bee.And more than 97% of them chose this kind of bee.Africanized bee is productive, resistant and its behavior keeps criminals out.Brazilis world's leader in crimes.Agre22 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

The answer is maybe and may be more location based. So in Brazil, and most other equatorial areas are seeing more honey produced (and as stated that may be from less stealing, as thieves are way more afraid of Africanized Honey Bees than normal European Bees) And it could also be they are producing more honey in the equatorial areas which might explain why African Honey Bees are in Africa, which is also equatoial. So the Africanized Bees may of picked up the genes that help them survive better in those equatorial regions (African Bees gather resources much further from the nest than European Bees) and kept the European Bee genes that made them better honey producers than normal African Honey Bees. (Actual African Honey Bees gather way more pollen than they do Nectar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.138.23 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016

Add navbox {{Mammal hybrids}} template.

--186.84.46.227 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I strongly believe Africanized bee is not a mammal hybrid. I also removed Africanized bee from the navbox. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Effort to create a genetically modified European bee which hatches faster than the Africanized ones

• Did the effort fail? Do they still try? Do they lack money?
• Or... do they believe that this would have no impact?

Add more data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:821A:3100:DB6:A5BF:2106:E49E (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Confusion

@Dyanega: It has been said in the article that The Africanized honey bee was first introduced to Brazil in the 1950s in an effort to increase honey production. But when I cross check the reference of that line I have found that In 1956, some colonies of African Honey Bees were imported into Brazil, with the idea of cross-breeding them with local populations of Honey Bees to increase honey production. Look the year is 1956; not 1950. That's why I edited. But it has been reverted. Fahim fanatic (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, you were reverted because it looked like a test edit. You changed "in the 1950s" to "in the 1956s", which isn't correct. I'll restore your edit with the intended meaning. clpo13_(talk) 19:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality ?

This article is full of assumptions, rumours, and lacks NPOV. The tips belong to a seperate article.

I actually just read a primary source that indicated that the bees were introduced into Brazil intentionally for the reason being to mate with the European bee (who was not producing substantially enough honey). See Africanization in the UNited States: Replacement of the Feral European Honeybees by an African Hybrid Swarm (M. Alice Pinto, WIlliam L. Rubink, John C. Patton, Robert N. Coulson, and J. Spencer Johnston).

"Killer Bee" versus "Africanized bee" : WP:COMMONNAME?

This may very well have been discussed before, but is the correct WP:COMMONNAME for these guys "Killer Bee" or "Africanized bee"? What do folks think about a proposed move? Here are the google ngram results. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the conversation mentioned in the recent move, but Africanized bee is the accepted common name of the hybrid, or Africanized killer bee if you're really digging in and differentiating Killer_bee#Gentle_Africanized_bees, which the article does to some degree already. Killer bee is typically only treated as a moniker that gets mentioned, but almost always alongside the former names in most scholarly sources.

In short, the article is about the hybrid, which often deals with the "killer" aspect of behavior, but not always. That's typically why killer has been left out of the title name. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - The Entomological Society of America maintains the "official" list of insect common names, and neither of these names is used, for the reason that the official common names link to scientific names. Since Africanized bees are not known by a different scientific name (hybrids do not have formal scientific names), they have no official common name, either. As such, given that the scientific/scholarly literature uses "Africanized bee" far more often, I would think that this would also be the better choice for an encyclopedic work such as WP. Dyanega (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked up the ESA database too, but remembered the same thing that it only goes down to the species level. It's definitely useful for other insect name discussions though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dyanega: - re "scientific/scholarly literature uses "Africanized bee" far more often" - Granted. But I don't think that's how we name things. We use the common name. Not the scholarly name.

@Kingofaces43: - re "almost always alongside the former names in most scholarly sources" - Did you see the ngram results? Seems like "killer bee" is more common in books. Can you present evidence for your statement? And regardless, even if true, why are we asking what "scholarly sources" call it? We use the most common name when possible. NickCT (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally we don't focus on things like google hits, etc. for assessing the common name in title discussions. Scholarly sources are generally the ones that give us formally (or semi-formally) accepted common names instead of focusing on nicknames that are non-encyclopedic and ambiguous like killer bee. The remainder of that guideline you mentioned talks about such precision, which is typically where scholarly sources carry more weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So you don't know what ngram is? For a second time, can you present evidence for your statement? NickCT (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I never said that, nor does it matter. Search hits regardless of the engine used aren't used in such a fashion aside from being extremely supplementary or exploratory as well as heavily cautioned in various guidance on search engines for Wikipedia use. As for scholarly sources, you don't have to look far in extension literature like this or this. Even then, the ambiguity issue I mentioned previously still remains. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a couple cherry-picked sources that support your argument. I'm looking for a measure of usage across all RS. A measure like ngram for instance. NickCT (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Things like Google Scholar, ngram, etc. are not going to filter out non-scholarly sources very well, especially when it comes to books. That's a well known issue with things like Google Scholar, etc. when it comes to citation counts or other metrics compared to relatively more reliable engines. Either way, that aspect is largely irrelevant at this point. We have sources directly discussing why killer bee is not a preferred name and only use colloquially at best, so that's about as good as we can get in terms of sources telling us what common name should be used without us engaging in our own research. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: - re "We have sources directly discussing why killer bee is not a preferred name" - You provided one source that says that.

re "so that's about as good as we can get ... sources telling us what common name should be used without us engaging in our own research" - Can you point to the guideline that says that?

Bottom line is really just that a common name trumps a scholarly name. Unless you have some evidence that you can cite which shows directly that among RS "Africanized Bee" is the more common name, the page ought to move. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct on the common name, we stick with the common name that reliable sources deem most appropriate. We wouldn't go with a "scholarly" name like the species name, etc. unless no common name existed. Right now we have sourcing establishing that Africanized is preferred and killer bee is generally to be avoided in terms of WP:DUE without any WP:OR on our part with nothing really contradicting that. When sources specifically comment on what name should be used we defer to them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: - re "we stick with the common name that reliable sources deem most appropriate." - In this case you're arguing for a less common name that a single RS suggested was more appropriate. Is that a policy based rationale or are you making up rules to justify your own personal preference?

re "When sources specifically comment on what name should be used we defer to them." - Seriously? Are you making this up? Cite policy or sit down. NickCT (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No need to ping me each time, I have beekeeping articles on my watchlist, including this one. As I mentioned before, take a read over WP:COMMONNAME and the rest of the policy, which is what I'm following. We don't just go counting the most hits on Google. Even if we were, one could argue both names were in the same relative order of magnitude and not significantly different in the graph you provided. Commonly used is only the first step in that policy. Killer bee specifically fails the precision aspect of naming policy as explicitly pointed out by sources and mentioned previously above, which is why other bee articles follow the Africanized naming for consistency. Africanized fulfills all those criteria and sources tell us to specifically use that and avoid the moniker killer bee.

WP:NDESC also comes into play because killer bee is a nickname that evokes emotion, while Africanized is much more neutral and descriptive of what the hybrid is in part because not all Africanized bees are "killer" in their behavior. Either way, we have a lot of policy and sourcing pointing to Africanized, that killer bee is a nickname even within common names, or that killer bee isn't such a great choice to use. There's really not active dispute in sources saying killer bee is better either. Those that do use the term killer bee in the title don't dispute this at all. This all circles back into my various comments above, so all I can say at this point is that when you have questionable or imprecise common names, we default to what reliable sources in the field say is the best name to use when they choose to bring up naming issues like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

re "we default to what reliable sources" - Using "we" when you mean "I" sounds strange.

WP:NDESC seems odd given things like Killer whale.

You tell me to read over WP:COMMONNAME and then you say you're following rules for precision. Precision is part of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision, not WP:COMMONNAME. Have you read WP:COMMONNAME?

It seems pretty clear you're not going to be swayed by logic. Shall we do an RM? NickCT (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, I've been responding to some pointy comments rather civilly and cited policy directly when you asked about it. Please cut the sniping. As for Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision vs. WP:COMMONNAME, those are part of the same overarching policy, and COMMONNAME (namely the third paragraph) explicitly says to follow WP:CRITERIA when assessing common names. Please slow down and read the policy a little more carefully in case you missed that. There's not really a need for an RM since we have WP:CONSENSUS so far barring any new information. That doesn't mean everyone is going to agree (part of the definition of that policy), but that all the policies and sources brought up here so far point away from using killer bee or at the very least no strong preference for killer bee. This page has a decent handful of watchers, so if they feel so strongly that we should move away from the status quo, I'm sure they'll speak up addressing all the various policy issues in play.

Also, keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That being said, see lady beetle for some discussion of how we commonly deal with multiple common names and tend to avoid imprecise names like lady bug. The taxonomic name takes priority in the title in that article for a family group, but the actual common name for the taxobox was not going to be lady bug for many of the same policy reasons as discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Dude, you're propensity for delusion is awesome. "we have WP:CONSENSUS"...... right.....

We'll avoid pointy comments by simply setting up an RM.

Let me know if you have any helpful, rational comments. Otherwise I'll set up the RM tomorrow. NickCT (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I recognize that you and Dyanega are entomologists, and I'm obviously not. I know it might seem silly for me to tell you what a killer bee is called; however, I myself have been in situations where I preferred a scholarly name over a common name b/c it happened to be a scholarly name I was familiar with using in a professional capacity. I've learned from debates of this nature that Wikipedia isn't written for me, or for scholars in my field. It's written for everyone.

I'm guessing you won't have the capacity to acknowledge your bias on this topic, and that's OK. That's why we have RMs.... NickCT (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Again WP:FOC and don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Please give consensus policy a read. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

So far you have brought up concerns that have all been directly addressed by WP:TITLE policy. There's really no other way around it than to say the policy issues have been addressed and say we've reached consensus (Wiki-policy consensus, not unanimous agreement) to the point it's WP:SNOW. I've pointed out multiple times now where you said things weren't in policy when they were right there in it. Wikipedia is written for everyone. That is why we use common names like Africanized bee instead of scholarly names like the formal scientific species and hybrid name (not to mention killer bee redirects here anyways). At the end of the day, title policy says to go with what reliable sources say to call it, especially when they specifically call out naming issues within different common names. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Africanized bee → Killer bee – "Killer bee" seems to have become a more common name for these bees than "Africanized Bee" (see ngram results, google news killer bee versus Africanized bee. NickCT (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As nom. There seems to be a conflict here between whether we should use a scholarly name or a common name. We generally use common names. NickCT (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The dispute is not over common vs. scholarly name, it is over two common names that's going against WP:COMMONNAME policy to move away from the current status quo of Africanized bee. As NickCT shows above, the Google ngram shows both Africanized and killer bee are used in roughly the same amounts, likely because while Africanized bee is preferred by scholarly sources, killer bee is frequently mentioned as a moniker within. There's a bit scattered across Talk:Africanized_bee#"Killer_Bee"_versus_"Africanized_bee"_:_WP:COMMONNAME?, but I'll summarize it here.

WP:TITLE policy is clear that we go by what reliable sources say to use, especially when they point out there is ambiguity or issues with one of the WP:COMMONAMEs. When you look at scholarly extension sources (material meant for reading by the general public put out by university entomologists, which is about as good of sourcing we can get without going into actual journals, etc.), they point out that the name killer bee is a moniker in terms of common names and Africanized bee should be used instead. In general, high-quality sources tend to use Africanized bees as a common name or at least tend to point out killer bee is a moniker amongst the common names. No one is out there in the sources trying to say killer bee is the preferred name over Africanized though. More sources include this, this, and this.

It doesn’t matter if killer bee did get more hits on Google though, especially in terms of the third paragraph at WP:UCRN when it comes to non-neutral, ambiguous, or inaccurate names, which points directly to WP:PRECISION. The issue with killer bee precision-wise is that it does not describe most of the article subject. Not all hybrids have the “killer” demeanor (Africanized_bee#Gentle_Africanized_bees). Africanized describes all traits of the hybrid ranging from increased invasiveness from traits that increase its spread by outcompeting other types of honeybees, honey production tendencies, etc. Killer bee is only describing a subset of the traits, so killer bee wouldn’t be an accurate title compared to Africanized.

I get that there’s a popular culture thing in play, but title policy cautions about these very things and encourages the train of thought I just described. Doing things like an unfiltered search of Google Books can get into trouble pretty easily with that in mind, but it’s far from a case where killer bee usage is vastly different than Africanized. They’re roughly about the same, so this isn’t a case where Africanized is some obscure common name. There's basically nothing presented so far that indicates killer bee should be used as a title, and what we do have indicates Africanized as the preferred common name along with killer bee mentioned as a frequent ambiguous nickname. There's just way too much policy pointing in the opposite direction of this proposed move. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As as side note (not as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), see lady beetle for an example of how policy plays out for something like lady beetle vs lady bug and going by what sources specifically say to use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Tacking on a little bit more with a more minor thing, but Killer bees is also not as unique as Africanized bees when you look at the disambiguation at that page. The current setup of having the main topic of the Africanized bee have its own name, and the remaining "lesser" subjects go into the killer bee disambiguation works pretty well. Switching that around doesn't work quite as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm an entomologist, and more with WP:RS and similar policies. I will point out that once you eliminate the newspaper and TV website articles, the overwhelming majority of the references cited within the article itself use "Africanized bee" or "African bee" as the preferred common name. If the sources for the article have a clear preference - and they do - then this is pretty solid evidence which name is better for the article itself. Newspapers and TV items barely qualify as WP:RS to begin with, I wouldn't give their usage much consideration for an encyclopedia. Dyanega (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't always use the commonest name: we use Diana, Princess of Wales not "Princess Diana", because the latter is a colloquialism and, officially, incorrect. We should favor the term used in scholarly works. DrKay (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current name is more satisfactory on many grounds, not least that 'killer bee' is ambiguous and over-dramatised. Endorse DrKay's, Dyanega's and Kingofaces43's comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is one of several factors to consider when choosing article titles, and it is not the most important (the most important are PRECISION, CONCISENESS, NATURALNESS, CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY (and COMMONNAME is basically a double dip of RECOGNIZABILITY). Neutrality is also a factor. Africanized bee is certainly more precise and neutral than Killer bee. And in practice, Wikipedia frequently doesn't use a lowest-common denominator slang name over a more scholarly name. Wikipedia has articles titled patella (not kneecap), Sildenafil (not Viagra), penis (not any of dozens of slang terms). Africanized bee is a far more appropriate choice of title. Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

@Dyanega: - re "I will point out that once you eliminate the newspaper and TV website articles" - Both you and King state this but then don't offer any evidence to show it's true. You guessing? re "sources for the article have a clear preference" - So if I pack the article w/ sources that use African Bee (as the majority of sources do), we can change the name?

@Kingofaces43: - Lady Bug isn't a great WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS example b/c there isn't a clear English language common name for it. NickCT (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Note in particular "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." and "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Dyanega (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously NickCT, please pay attention to what I actually write in my posts and stop misrepresenting people. I explicitly said that wasn't intended in an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fashion. The example of how policy played out there was that the clear preferred English common names included beetle in the name rather than bug (lady beetle or else ladybird beetle as a less common though tolerated UK variant). Things like ladybug are generally considered inaccurate though. I brought that up because that's an example of how common name policy works out for those not familiar with the policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@DrKay: - Yes, there are lots of alternative naming schema like Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). As far as can tell, none of those apply here. NickCT (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article seems to switch between "african" and "africanized" bees

I think the majority of these cases "africanized" is the proper word that should be being used. If not, it seems strange to include them in the page as this not supposed to be about the african honeybee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.145.195 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated images

Only one of the images of honey bees in this article is truly an image of an Africanized honey bee. The first one is tagged as an Africanized bee which is incorrect because it is described as an Apis mellifera scutellata. The third one is an African bee which is a very loose description of a subset of honey bees and not a specific hybrid or subspecies. This article should only show images of Africanized honey bees. Anything else is unrelated and it is probably already where it should be (not here).

ICE77 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description

Hi The wub and anyone else: I'd like to make the {{short desc}} more specific. I suggest "Hybrid bee from Brazil invading northward" which, although 41 chars and thus over the recommended 40, seems pretty good. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to go slightly over 40 characters if you feel the extra information is going to be useful to readers. I don't really know the subject well enough to judge in this case. the wub "?!" 11:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Racist implications of the term "Africanized bee"

Hello, since society in recent years has undergone antiracist and anticolonial re-education, I believe this article is missing any sort of acknowledgement of the term "africanized" and how it is subtly juxtaposed with the gentler "european" bees, and also an explanation of the resultant racist implications. There is no mention of this in the article, but it does appear in the published historical record: http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/mgray/wfs560/biological_invasions.pdf I am not sure how to integrate this into the article, but if someone else wants to do this, I think it should be done.2600:1012:B041:546F:5486:42B4:9BE9:C8F6 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Africanized" and "European" are talking about the continents where they are originally from. There is no racist implication whatsoever. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that the claims that the term is racist come from a single essay on feminism, and - tangentially, if Simberloff's analysis is correct - a Michael Moore movie, this looks more like something that falls into WP:FRINGE. Simberloff himself does not claim the term is racist, he simply points to Tsing and Moore as evidence that some people perceive the term as racist. That's a fairly important thing to bear in mind here. Also, speaking as a bee biologist who was around when the term was coined, the reasoning was simple and direct; they could not be called African honeybees (because they were believed to be hybrids), yet they behaved exactly like African honeybees. The term "Africanized" was coined to express that formerly docile colonies suddenly started acting like African honeybees (it helps to know that in honeybees the old queen leaves or dies and a new queen takes over the same colony, so an entire apiary could be rapidly transformed to aggressive colonies), while acknowledging their hybrid origin. These discussions were as dry and academic as you could imagine, and what people "read into" that terminology reflects their own perspective on society, rather than on the scientists who coined the name. Had the situation been reversed, where all conventional managed breeds were African, and the aggressive wild type was from Europe, we would have called them "Europeanized". Dyanega (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Geographic spread

The map is outdate and only include US. Can anyone change the map?

LONG out of date! In 2014 a significant colony was moved and destroyed in Palisade, Colorado and the local hardiness zone is 7a. Chesapeake Bay is a conservative expectation of the limit of spread. I would expect up the East Coast at least to Long Island. Heff01 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't replace the existing map until and unless someone publishes a newer map, and makes it available copyright-free. Otherwise, you run afoul of things like WP:NOR restrictions. Dyanega (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)