In a message dated 3/5/00 11:03:46 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< A correction for the above post.  Bumble bees were not imported into
Australia several centuries ago.  Some turned up in Tasmania a few years back
but there are none on the mainland. >>

   I am fortunate to work for someone who is a collector of rare and antique
gardening and natural science books. One of those books is "Nature's Garden:
An Aid to Knowledge of our Wild Flowers and their Insect Visitors", by Neltje
Blanchan (New York; Doubleday, Page and Co. 1900). The reference is as
follows:

   "Australian farmers imported clover from Europe, and although they had
luxuriant fields of it, no seed was set for next year's planting, because
they had failed to import the bumblebee. After his arrival, their loss was
speedily made good."

   What is the source of Blanchan's report? Here, from the book's preface, is
the record of Blanchan's sources (and an introduction to the book). Pardon
the long-winded quote, but that was the writing style of the time:

   "Although it has been stated by evolutionists for many years that in order
to know the flowers, their insect relationships must first be understood, it
is believed that "Nature's Garden" is the first American work to explain them
in any considerable number of species. Dr. Asa Gray, William Hamilton Gibson,
Clarence Moores Weed, and Miss Maud Going in their delightful books or
lectures have shown the interdependence of a score or more of different
blossoms and their insect visitors. Hidden away in the proceedings of
scientific societies' technical papers are the invaluable observations of
such men as Dr. William Trelease of Wisconsin and Professor Charles Robertson
of Illinois. To the latter, especially, I am glad to acknowledge my
indebtedness. Sprengel, Darwin, Muller, Delphino and Lubbock, among others,
have given the world classical volumes on European flora only, but showing a
vast array of facts which the theory of adaptation to insects alone
correlates and explains. That the results of their illumining researches
should be so slow in enlightening the popular mind can be due only to the
technical, scientific language used in setting them forth, language as
foreign to the average reader as Chinese, and not to be deciphered by the
average student, either, without the help of a glossary. *These writings, as
well as the vast array of popular books—too many for individual mention—have
been freely consulted after studies made afield.*"
   Sadly, a more rigorous referencing system was not used. Perhaps Blanchan
was trying to make the science more accessible to his readers. The exact
source of his report on bumblebees, whether personal observation or the
report of another, is unclear. More research of his above-mentioned sources
could ferret the source out.
Some possibilities:
> The report is erroneous.
> Bumblebees exist in Australia, but you have failed to observe them.
> Bumblebees were introduced to Australia and something happened to them. If
so, we need to know more about it so that countries with native bumblebee
populations can adjust vigilance over and control of Australian imports.
> Your data are incomplete and your theories have failed to account for the
many stresses that face native pollinators in Australia  and throughout the
world in favor of an overly narrow focus that scapegoats honey bees.

John Mitchell
Associate Editor, Traditional Gardening magazine