> Honey bees are known to leave their stingers embedded in tender flesh once they sting you and fly away
This is an accident of our physiology as honey bees sting other species multiple times, just like a wasp can to us. They don’t except to rip in half or end their life when they sting us. This is not an adaptation specifically ensuring group survival, it is a tragedy exclusive to encountering mammals near the hive.
Is this the view of any well-regarded entomologist?
Given smooth stingers exist, and given the pump mechanism is self contained within the stinger, it seems more likely that this was evolved to deliver higher doses of venom to vertebrates.
But their stingers are barbed, unlike wasp stingers and other stinger types which are smooth. Barbed stingers seem specifically designed to lodge in elastic skin (that is, skin of a larger vertebrate, not simply mammals) and a barbed stinger can also be more effective at delivering venom, pumping long after the bee itself has disengaged and slunk away.
I don't see how you can call it an "accident" if it's a simple fact that barbed stingers are well-adapted to lodge in the skin of larger victims and stick around and increase efficacy of the attack.
Worker bees themselves are disposable. If we consider an entire hive as the organism, rather than the component bees, we can easily see how the loss of several workers to loss-of-stinger attacks is beneficial to the entire organism, and it really does enhanced survival of the group, or the organism itself, if you will.
> we can easily see how the loss of several workers to loss-of-stinger attacks is beneficial to the entire organism
We can't easily see it, especially if on the other hand you have a design that requires no losses. And it's not always "several", especially with bigger predators
If you think that's bad, consider how they mate. A honeybee drone mates with a queen in flight, and when he disengages with the queen his endophallus will be ripped off, killing the drone.
I don't think it disproves "honeybee barbs are adaptive against mammals", for example:
1. It may not be adaptive for honeybees to self-sacrifice against smaller targets. The full venom dose could be overkill, or it may be better to have multiple tries or engage multiple foes.
2. Perhaps it's just harder to evolve a good barb against smaller targets or ones with different surfaces/material.
3. Would smaller/different barbs increase the risk of damaging "accidents"?
It seems safe to assume there are evolutionary pressures around stinger-design, especially when we consider that queens of the same species do not have the same barbs.
workers don’t have genetic contributions to pass on
Its simply a mutation that is merely not selected against, as there are enough workers to ensure hive reproduction, but the specific barb mutation happens to be inferior to a wasp’s but only when mammals are around
they make do with it, a stuck stinger injects more venom and a ripped apart bee gives out a distress hormone attracting other bees
but…. so does a wasp.
it doesn’t even prevent hive destruction from a large persistent mammal
so, its okay to feel empathy.
if the bee has conscious behavior, they do not sting expecting their own death. they expected to go back home to their hive family and mammal skin is an unexpected death trap. the way bee stinging choices are written about is mammal centered and inaccurate.
This is an accident of our physiology as honey bees sting other species multiple times, just like a wasp can to us. They don’t except to rip in half or end their life when they sting us. This is not an adaptation specifically ensuring group survival, it is a tragedy exclusive to encountering mammals near the hive.
Is this the view of any well-regarded entomologist?
Given smooth stingers exist, and given the pump mechanism is self contained within the stinger, it seems more likely that this was evolved to deliver higher doses of venom to vertebrates.
I don't see how you can call it an "accident" if it's a simple fact that barbed stingers are well-adapted to lodge in the skin of larger victims and stick around and increase efficacy of the attack.
Worker bees themselves are disposable. If we consider an entire hive as the organism, rather than the component bees, we can easily see how the loss of several workers to loss-of-stinger attacks is beneficial to the entire organism, and it really does enhanced survival of the group, or the organism itself, if you will.
We can't easily see it, especially if on the other hand you have a design that requires no losses. And it's not always "several", especially with bigger predators
the disposable worker is not disposed and continues working
I don't think it disproves "honeybee barbs are adaptive against mammals", for example:
1. It may not be adaptive for honeybees to self-sacrifice against smaller targets. The full venom dose could be overkill, or it may be better to have multiple tries or engage multiple foes.
2. Perhaps it's just harder to evolve a good barb against smaller targets or ones with different surfaces/material.
3. Would smaller/different barbs increase the risk of damaging "accidents"?
It seems safe to assume there are evolutionary pressures around stinger-design, especially when we consider that queens of the same species do not have the same barbs.
Its simply a mutation that is merely not selected against, as there are enough workers to ensure hive reproduction, but the specific barb mutation happens to be inferior to a wasp’s but only when mammals are around
they make do with it, a stuck stinger injects more venom and a ripped apart bee gives out a distress hormone attracting other bees
but…. so does a wasp.
it doesn’t even prevent hive destruction from a large persistent mammal
so, its okay to feel empathy.
if the bee has conscious behavior, they do not sting expecting their own death. they expected to go back home to their hive family and mammal skin is an unexpected death trap. the way bee stinging choices are written about is mammal centered and inaccurate.