After I responded (in part) to Joseph Johnson's query about stinger
evolution, Tim Rich retorted:

>"In fact,  nobody has seen the 'evolution' and we can only hypothesize
>about what 'might' have happened.  If the honey bee stinger were a part of
>the ovipositor, why does the queen not use the stinger as such - especially
>since egg production is her purpose in the hive!"

**********

   One can find clarification about this general question both 1) on pages
165 and 166 in the ANATOMY OF THE HONEY BEE (1984 printing, by R.E.
Snodgrass) and 2) on pages 150, 151, and 156 in THE HIVE AND THE HONEY BEE
(1992, edited by Joe M. Graham, authors Snodgrass and Eric H. Erickson).  I
provide here quotations from both of those works:

1)  pp. 165-66:  "An ovipositor develops in the same way as does the sting,
and works in much the same manner, but the mechanism necessary for
discharging eggs is in general simpler than that for injecting poison....
In the non-stinging members of the Hymenoptera the females use their
ovipositors for egg laying.  The eggs traverse the channel of the shaft
just as they do in Orthoptera and Hemiptera, though in some parasitic
species with bristlelike ovipositors the eggs may be greatly compressed and
stretched in their transit through the narrow channel.  The queen bee
discharges her eggs directly from the genital opening before the base of
the sting."

2)  pp. 150-51:  "The sting of the bee is similar in its structure and
mechanism to an egg-laying organ, known as the ovipositor, possessed by
many other female insects, including most of the Hymenoptera.  The
ovipositor of some species is also a piercing organ capable of being
inserted into the bodies of other insects, or of penetrating plant tissues,
even hard wood; but in such cases its function is merely to form a hole in
which the eggs may be deposited.  The sting of the stinging Hymenoptera
(Plate 20), therefore, is very evidently an ovipositor that has been
remodeled in a few ways for the injection of poison instead of eggs."
   pp. 156:  "The sting of the queen is longer than that of the worker and
is more solidly attached within the sting chamber.  Its shaft is strongly
decurved beyond the bulb.  The lancets have fewer and smaller barbs than
those of the worker (Plate 21), but the poison glands are well developed
and the poison sac is very large."

********

   Now to the question posed by Mr. Rich:

>"If the honey bee stinger were a part of the ovipositor, why does the
>queen >not use the stinger as such - especially since egg production is
>her purpose >in the hive!"

   My reply:  WHY questions and PURPOSE speculations belong in the realm of
theology and only represent incipient questions for scientists.  Instead,
scientists have to attend to hypotheses about HOW and WHAT.  We treated
this problem in Excursus TEL of our 1990 Columbia University Press book,
ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY: THE QUESTION OF A "LANGUAGE" AMONG BEES.

                                                                Adrian

Adrian M. Wenner                    (805) 963-8508 (home phone)
967 Garcia Road                     (805) 893-8062  (UCSB FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA  93103

****************************************************************************
*

*     "Nature only answers rightly when she is rightly questioned."

*

*                                                      Goethe
****************************************************************************