Reevaluation of honeybee (Apis mellifera) microtaxonomy: a geometric morphometric approach

Abstract

In the present study, the microtaxonomy of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) subspecies was reevaluated based on a geometric morphometric method. Wing images of honeybee subspecies, obtained from the Morphometric Bee Data Bank in Oberursel, Germany, were assigned to four honeybee lineages from the indivudial images, and 40 Cartesian coordinates were obtained. Honeybee lineages were significantly different based on individual and colony consensus average wing shapes of honeybee subspecies (P<0.001). According to the discriminant function analysis of honeybee lineages, the A lineage and M lineage showed some degree of overlap. Multivariate statistical analysis displayed that Apis mellifera intermissa, a member of M lineage, seemed to belong to the A lineage. In addition, Apis mellifera sicula, a member of C lineage; Apis mellifera sahariensis, a member of M lineage; and Apis mellifera syriaca, a member of O lineage, were located closer to the A lineage rather than to their own lineages. In the previous studies, the results of principal component analysis of morphometric data and the mtDNA analysis of honeybee subspecies supported these subspecific affinities. Thus, geometric morphometric analysis of wing shape could be used as a reliable tool to discriminate among honeybee subspecies and may have advantages over standard morphometry.Apis mellifera / geometric morphometric / landmark / subspecies / discriminant function analysis

Standard methods for characterising subspecies and ecotypes ofApis mellifera

“…while Kandemir et al (2011), following Zelditch et al (2004), moved point 15 from the apex of the radial cell to the junction of Rs5 and the costa, and located one additional point at the end of the vannal fold.…”

“…(Monteiro, 1999). For this kind of analysis, the software packages Morpheus (Slice, 2002), NTSYS (Rohlf, 1990), MORPHOJ (Klingenberg, 2011) (Francoy et al, 2006(Francoy et al, , 2008Baylac et al, 2008;Tofilski, 2008;Miguel et al, 2010;Kandemir et al, 2011). This method has also been used to analyse differences between three honey bee subspecies in Poland: A. m. mellifera, A. m. carnica, and A. m. caucasica (Tofilski, 2004(Tofilski, , 2008 (Tofilski, 2008).…”

The genetic origin of honey bee colonies used in the COLOSS Genotype-Environment Interactions Experiment: a comparison of methods

“…The samples analysed Geometric morphometry has been used successfully to discriminate European subspecies, (Kandemir et al, 2000;Bouga and Hatjina, 2005;Tofilski, 2008;Kandemir et al, 2011;Miguel et al, 2011) and Africanized and non-Africanized bees (Francoy et al, 2008;Francoy et al, 2009). …”

Revision of the orchid bee subgenus <i>Euglossella</i> (Hymenoptera: Apidae), part II: The <i>viridis</i> and <i>mandibularis</i> species groups

“…Naturally, molecular data would be ideal for resolving such a difficulty and this certainly one of the ways in which DNA barcoding can prove useful despite its broader limitations. Given the rarity of material and that DNA is sometimes degraded in historical specimens, the use of geometric morphometrics may prove to be a more fruitful pursuit as it has the potential to resolve the placement of individual specimens in specific or even higher categories (e.g., Kandemir et al, 2011;Kotthoff et al, 2011Kotthoff et al, , 2013Wappler et al, 2012;Dewulf et al, 2014;Dehon et al, in press) and is a non-destructive technique. Certainly this remains a topic ripe for future research and it will be exciting to learn eventually how best to associate males and females for these taxa.…”