Of course I was pleased when Johns Hopkins University Press indicated an interest in a revised edition of The Bees of the World.
A large review or revisional work like the original The Bees of the World inevitably goes out of date as new findings or interpretations are made, and also as errors or omissions in the original book are discovered.
For the original edition (usually referred to below as Michener, 2000) relevant publications were surveyed through 1997, with some additional material being included as addenda or otherwise as it came to my notice into 1999. Some publications that appeared in 1998 and 1999 were not cited or were inadequately utilized and are now properly incorporated, as are the items in the Addenda of the original edition. For the second edition, I have tried to cover literature through 2005, with additional material for 2006.
As in the original edition, arbitrary decisions about rank or recognition of taxa were often needed. Some recently proposed genera and subgenera are synonymized below, even though they constitute recognizable and even useful groups, because I am following so far as possible the practices involved in writing the first edition. The main point is that the classification should represent relationships, or similarities when phylogenetic relationships are in doubt. A classification that emphasizes differences can result in an unnecessary multiplication of taxa that (1) often can be distinguished only with difficulty or (2) represent odd derivatives whose relationships are better represented by inclusion within the recognized groups. There is no doubt, however, that some of the taxa here syn-onymized will be resurrected when new classifications are proposed, based on phylogenetic hypotheses that are yet to be developed.
Noteworthy developments in recent years are the number of phylo-genetic analyses based on molecular characters, morphological characters, or both, prepared for groups of bees, and the classificatory changes based on these analyses. When the hypotheses are robust, I have modified the text in response. When it seems that changes in taxa studied or in the characters included in the analyses would change the outcome considerably, I usually report the study but, for the sake of stability, I do not change the classification. Changes in classifications as a result of clado-grams subject to major change are not justified, because stability is an important feature for classifications. We should change a classification when we know that the change is justified, but otherwise we should not.
The acknowledgments for the first addition still stand, of course. Some of those listed have generously provided additional help. Other persons who have helped for this edition, as follows:
John S. Ascher, New York City, New York, USA;
Michael S. Engel, Lawrence, Kansas, USA (the color photos and plates of fossil bees, etc.); Molly G. Rightmyer, Lawrence, Kansas, USA (Epeolini); Allan H. Smith-Pardo, Lawrence, Kansas, USA (Augochlorini); Michael Terzo, Mons, Belgium (Ceratina).
I especially appreciate the contribution of "Key to the Subgenera of Cen-tris" by Ricardo Ayala, Estacion Chamela, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonama de México, Ciudad de México. I also appreciate the careful typing and editing by Anna J. Michener.
Lawrence, Kansas July 18, 2006
Was this article helpful?