randy_byers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
randy_byers) wrote2007-05-23 08:28 am
randy_byers) wrote2007-05-23 08:28 am
Entry tags:
Hoarse and buggy
So I have a head cold, huzzah. Stayed home the last two days while it got worse, but I think it's as bad as it's going to get now. (Knock would.) Yesterday as I was heating some soup, I went out and looked at the bees in the ceanothus again. I noticed some bees that had a distinctive orangish section in the abdomen, and googling makes me think they might be red-tailed bumblebees. I looked at the bees in the raspberries too, and finally saw an orchard mason bee, which I'm sure in the past I would have thought was a fly. Would I have wondered why a fly was crawling around so purposefully on a flower? And I'm now wondering whether the other very hairy bees I'm seeing in the ceanothus are actually bumblebees of various types, because they're so much bigger than the orchard mason bee. As you can see in the red-tailed bumblebee, there can be a lot of variation in coloration of bumblebees.
This morning I was thinking about Marija Gimbutas' books about the neolithic great goddess. Her theories may well be bogus, but she at least is looking at primary evidence, such as the decorations on pottery. I seem to recall that she wrote about bee imagery and bee-headed goddesses. Symbols of reproduction, no doubt. Makes me wonder how far back bee-keeping goes. I suppose that as soon as agriculture became a mainstay of food-production, bees became important too. Were they important to humans before agriculture, just as a symbol of natural fecundity?
Update: A kindly lurker (my housemate) has pointed me toward a page that led to a page at Evergreen State about local bumblebees with the following enlightening comment: "Bombus are notorious for having considerable variation in coloring within a species. One reason for this is a single species may be involved in different mimicry systems in different parts of the species' range (see mimicry). This variation makes taxonomy difficult. It is often hard to define a species, and even harder to define subspecies. A common method is to look for discrete forms in sympatry (occurring in the same area), this reveals two distinct species. The variation in coloring within a species is more extreme with male Bombus than females. To identify males, it is usually necessary to dissect the genitalia."
Um, ouch? I'd say that this makes taxonomy not just difficult, but torture!
This morning I was thinking about Marija Gimbutas' books about the neolithic great goddess. Her theories may well be bogus, but she at least is looking at primary evidence, such as the decorations on pottery. I seem to recall that she wrote about bee imagery and bee-headed goddesses. Symbols of reproduction, no doubt. Makes me wonder how far back bee-keeping goes. I suppose that as soon as agriculture became a mainstay of food-production, bees became important too. Were they important to humans before agriculture, just as a symbol of natural fecundity?
Update: A kindly lurker (my housemate) has pointed me toward a page that led to a page at Evergreen State about local bumblebees with the following enlightening comment: "Bombus are notorious for having considerable variation in coloring within a species. One reason for this is a single species may be involved in different mimicry systems in different parts of the species' range (see mimicry). This variation makes taxonomy difficult. It is often hard to define a species, and even harder to define subspecies. A common method is to look for discrete forms in sympatry (occurring in the same area), this reveals two distinct species. The variation in coloring within a species is more extreme with male Bombus than females. To identify males, it is usually necessary to dissect the genitalia."
Um, ouch? I'd say that this makes taxonomy not just difficult, but torture!