Taxonomic revision and identification keys for the giant honey bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The taxonomy and phylogeny of the giant honey bees ( Apis ; subgenus Megapis ) remain controversial and unresolved. The species boundaries within the subgenus are unclear, and some species that are recognized on the basis of genetic differences lack supporting morphological characteristics. Two species are now well accepted: Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793, of tropical regions of Asia, and Apis laboriosa Moore et al., 1871, an inhabitant of the foothills of the Himalayas and neighboring mountain ranges. In addition, researchers have suggested that the two allopatric populations of giant honey bees that inhabit Sulawesi, Indonesia ( Apis binghami Cockerell, 1906) and the oceanic Philippine islands ( Apis breviligula Maa, 1953), as well as the South Indian form also deserve species status. We evaluated morphological characters of all of these taxa in order to revise the taxonomy of the subgenus. Methods We conducted a taxonomic study based on morphological characters of Megapis from throughout Asia. In addition, we created taxonomic keys to workers and drones for the giant honey bee species that we recognize. Results Our study confirms that A. laboriosa is a distinct species based on numerous morphological characters. Moreover, A. dorsata of mainland Asia differs from the two island taxa based on coloration, ocellus size, and the spacing of compound eyes and ocelli. We found no evidence that breviligula of the Philippines has a distinctively short tongue. Moreover, we detected only one minor character (the shape of sternum 5) that differed statistically between bees from Sulawesi and the Philippines. We conclude that the bees from these islands represent a single morphological species, A. binghami , with two subspecies, A. b. binghami and A. b. breviligula . A. dorsata from the Andaman Islands are smaller than but conspecific with dorsata of mainland Asia. We found no morphological autapomorphies in the giant honey bees of southern India that are known to differ in mtDNA from A. dorsata from elsewhere in mainland Asia. Discussion Our morphological examination of Megapis specimens firmly supports three species of giant honey bees: A. laboriosa, A. dorsata , and A. binghami . More detailed examination of specimens is required to reconcile our three morphological species with the five clades that have been identified with genetic analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".