Talk:Varroa underwoodi

Host and nonhost

Hello @KoA: I don't know what First was already mentioned, second contradicts other sources. means. After Special:MobileDiff/1182897194 there is no mention of either Traynor or Wang. Traynor is a 2020 review which gives a specific citation – Wang – for absence from A. mellifera. Chantawannakul is the only other secondary source in the article. Although it does support absence you didn't cite it, it is 2016 and it gives only the authors' opinion on absence. Chantawannakul also supports absence from that host across the world not only in China. A 2020 review contradicting 1987, 1999 and 2016 sources and a 2020 primary source is not a bad thing. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was referring to the two sentences you added. The take home is that this species has been documented infesting A. mellifera. A single study in China not finding V. underwoodi there doesn't change that worldwide, and the current sourcing puts all of the research in context. The challenge with the review you provided is that it does not address all of the relevant literature on this subject. It only cites Wang in a single sentence in a text box saying V. underwoodi remains a specialist on A. cerana. . .. We can't say V. underwoodi does not infest A. mellifera based on that alone. Other sources list the four different species it has been found on instead. Had they addressed the previous literature and indicated there was a misidentification or something else, then maybe, but there would be a bit to address just for that one bee species.

Maybe there could be something unique to the Papua New Guinea population, or maybe A. mellifera isn't an ideal host (plausible with this species being smallest on western honeybees). Perhaps V. underwoodi does primarily specialize on A. cerana and has relatively minor utilization of the other species, but that would be up to sources to comment on in the future. In the meantime, the best summary of the current research is to say this species has been documented infesting A. mellifera while mentioning that something odd was going on in China where they didn't find the species in those hives and leave it at that. KoA (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The review you cited says A. mellifera is always a nonhost. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which review? This table lists A. mellifera as does Table 2 here. If you mean Fanelli, they say detected in different bee species in Southern Asia and found exclusively in A. cerana in China (my bold). That is what the article currently reflects. KoA (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V. underwoodi is restricted to A. cerana, A. nigrocincta, and A. nuluensis. but you are correct that the table from the same paper contradicts that. In any case 2020 >>>> 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to return Traynor and state that sources' opinions differ because there is little available research {{as of|2023}}? Invasive Spices (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I was alluding to above, it's best to wait for commentary from sources actually saying there is an issue or disagreement on A. mellifera as a host. We'd need someone directly summarizing those sources for us. We already have the commentary that it wasn't found in China, and that's probably about as much as we can say on the subject right now without us getting into personal speculation. In the meantime, we have confirmation that this species has been found on A. mellifera elsewhere, so it would remain on the list unless it's determined the original source was in error. A newer source omitting something doesn't make the earlier observations disappear.

As for Traynor, it only says it seems to specialize on A. cerana, not that it doesn't parasitize others. If they really did mean it only infests that species, then it would seem like an omission without addressing the relevant literature. Whether it's that or if there's just variation on host specificity, it doesn't look like the research is there yet. Right now it's mostly just saying we found it on X, Y, Z, here, while others found it on A, B, C there without great compilation on just this one species. KoA (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and looked at Wang too, the primary source for Traynor, and it looks like Wang didn't find many apiaries with V. underwoodi on any species. It definitely looks like one of those claims we need to be really careful about given the type of data they have and wait for more updates. KoA (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]