| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | I had thought all the worker bees were female, and all the male "drones" stayed in the hives. The Wikipedia says that isn't true for all species. [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 07:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | | I had thought all the worker bees were female, and all the male "drones" stayed in the hives. The Wikipedia says that isn't true for all species. [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 07:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
| − | :Even among eusocial bees, the drones leave the hive/nest to mate. Among honeybees, they even forage.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Eusociality in bees is actually quite rare. Only the honey bee and a few other species are social, the rest are solitary: one nest per female and males that fly around without nesting and are often quite active. It's the common case, social species are the exception.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Social: 7 species of honeybee, about 500 species of stingless bees and about 200 species of bumblebee, compared to a good twenty thousand bee species total. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.156|141.101.104.156]] 10:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ophrys_apifera&oldid=571187022#Reproduction Wikipedia on the reproduction of Ophrys apifera]: | | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ophrys_apifera&oldid=571187022#Reproduction Wikipedia on the reproduction of Ophrys apifera]: |
| Line 20: |
Line 15: |
| | | | |
| | The Axe body spray gag is particularly relevant, since the ad's depiction of a woman, like the flower, is another imitation of real females of a species meant to draw males of the species through deception. [[User:Nick Douglas|Nick Douglas]] ([[User talk:Nick Douglas|talk]]) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | | The Axe body spray gag is particularly relevant, since the ad's depiction of a woman, like the flower, is another imitation of real females of a species meant to draw males of the species through deception. [[User:Nick Douglas|Nick Douglas]] ([[User talk:Nick Douglas|talk]]) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
| − | :You are right, and the title text is still too descriptive. Give us a try.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Note that (as doubtless mentioned in the linked-to Wikipedia article, "Axe" is known as "Lynx" in the UK (at least). The same style of marketing campaign, however, with the partially homogonised Anglo-American (or even Worldwide) cultural references fighting it out with local variations in sensibilities and advertising law/regulation. Meaning that besides alternate product-shots and (sometimes) voiceovers, they do tend to have similar/identical action composition in their ads.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also, self-pollination is being described as "a form of in-breeding". I think making that "the ultimate form of in-breeding", or similar, would be more accurate. In-breeding generally is used to describe more marginal or "just beyond the limit" forms of incests (e.g. close cousins, in human cultures), up until sibling or parent/child genetic re-mixing, but only full parthenogenisis seems to be more 'extreme' (although arguably less dangerous, through its long-time 'practice', rather than being a step ''back'' from the more beneficial sexual reproduction methods that the self-fertilising organism generally will have had to make, like in this case). [[Special:Contributions/178.106.190.241|178.106.190.241]] 23:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is the most touching cartoon he's ever done. [[Special:Contributions/72.10.216.205|72.10.216.205]] 02:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − | I have to agree with you there. [[Special:Contributions/115.70.105.180|115.70.105.180]] 07:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − | : Well, right up there with [[695: Spirit]], anyway. [[Special:Contributions/130.225.98.201|130.225.98.201]] 08:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Too bad it isn't true. The bee is quite common.{{unsigned ip|96.251.85.48}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is almost straight from the movie [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268126/ Adaptation (2002)] {{unsigned ip|68.188.12.97}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I noticed that there are a number of sub-species of Ophrys apifera. Is it possible that they are regionally adapted to variations among the Eucera population? Randall has gone to a lot of trouble to depict the flower and to wax poetically upon the bee, and it seems somewhat odd if the whole point of the comic, that the bee is 'extinct', is a fallacy. Is Randall just making use of his poetic license here? Or does the Ophrys apifera that he depicts relate to an actually extinct sub-species of Eucera? I would love to know, but without going to the trouble of finding out for myself. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 02:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :The italian language edition of Wikipedia also mentions that Ophrys apifera relied on a now-extinct bee. Source is given as {{w|The Blind Watchmaker}}, by Richard Dawkins. Maybe Dawkins used the example without knowing that there are still some bees which pollinate this orchid in some parts of the world. And maybe Randall was reading Dawkins. Does anyone have this book?
| |
| − | :--[[User:Lou Crazy|Lou Crazy]] ([[User talk:Lou Crazy|talk]]) 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I just read this, and... now I feel sad for those bees.
| |
