Bibliographic record
Abstract
Of the about 1850 species of Hymenoptera for which chromosome counts are known, only just over 200 of these are bees (Apoidea). Haploid numbers ( n ) range from 3-28, which probably does represent the true range of chromosome numbers in this superfamily. The modal number is 17, with another peak at n =9, representing a clade of meliponid bees which has been well studied. Although much is known about the chromosomes of bees there is still much to learn about overall trends in haploid number and chromosome organization. We are still lacking this information for many important families of bees. The only andrenid bee karyotyped, Andrena togashii has the low n of 3, so we certainly need to know which other species in this family have low chromosome numbers to see if this is an exception and to further test the Minimum Interaction Theory (MIT) of Imai and colleagues which predicts the evolutionary increase in chromosome number. In general, an overall increase from low numbers ( n =3-8) to the higher numbers found in the Apidae, Colletidae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae (modal numbers 17, 16, 16, 16, respectively) does appear to be followed. However, within groups this is not always the case; the Meliponid clade with n =9 being an example. The potential adaptive value of chromosome number per se is of great interest. I propose a hypothesis to account for the high ( n =25) chromosome number found in the social parasitic bumble bee subgenus Psithyrus . More sophisticated techniques beyond chromosome counting and karyotyping using C-banding, will yield much more detailed information about chromosomal rearrangements as shown by the work on the neotropical meliponid bees by the Brazilian cytogeneticists, and when these are applied to other taxa of bees will undoubtedly reveal features of great interest. Genomic approaches are starting to identify chromosomal rearrangements such as inversions and this holds much potential to explore their adaptive significance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".