• Research
  • Publications
  • Identification
  • Writing
  • Resources
ZACHARY PORTMAN
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Identification
  • Writing
  • Resources

10 reasons we don’t need taxonomists

5/26/2020

0 Comments

 
  1. They are always slowing down projects with the need for “identifications”
  2. Everything can just be identified to morphospecies since all species are basically equivalent
  3. They keep changing names for no good reason
  4. Species aren’t real anyways, they’re just made up concepts
  5. We can replace taxonomists with machine learning; just upload everything to iNaturalist and use its algorithm
  6. We can replace taxonomists with DNA barcoding
  7. Why do I need a taxonomist when my undergrad technician and/or grad student identified everything just fine?
  8. This key from 1960 still works great, why do we need up to date research?
  9. All the species that matter have already been described
  10. Their work is too low impact — when was the last time a taxonomic revision was published in science or nature?
0 Comments

Nest guarding in male bees: supplement

5/14/2019

0 Comments

 
I recently wrote a letter to the editor in PNAS in which I pointed out that nest guarding in males was not novel behavior: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/20/9711

In that letter, I was limited to 10 citations. I tried to put more in, but the journal would not let me. I then tried to complain about citation limits, but the journal wouldn’t let me do that either:
Picture

As a result, I am listing the additional citations here:

  • Fragmentary observations of male nest guarding behavior include observations by Rayment (1935) on L. seductum (Cockerell).
  • Kerr (1997) observed three instances of male Melipona scutellaris Latreille driving spiders away from nest entrances, and he also noted examples of males doing nest maintanence work such as making and building with wax.
  • Timberlake (1980) reported an observation of a macrocephalic male of Macrotera portalis (Timberlake) guarding a nest entrance, though doubt has been cast on the role of macrocephalic males as guards in this species (Danforth 1991).
  • Houston (1970) speculated that macrocephalic males of Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) sp. represented a soldier caste, but did not observe their behavior.
  • Camargo and Velthuis (1979) observed male Xylocopa frontalis (Olivier) guarding nest entrances and expelling ants that tried to enter. Though it seems likely that these males are brothers or sons rather than mates.
  • Scholz and Wittmann (1987) also observed Xylocopa males guarding nests, especially against ants, though they did not specify which of the 5 species they talk about performed this behavior. Again, these are likely sons or brothers performing the nest guarding.
  • In an unpublished thesis, Kislow (1976) records male Ceratina strenua blocking the nest entrance with the abdomen, but does not offer an interpretation of this behavior.
  • Hefetz, Batra, and Blum (1979) states that “In nature, both sexes [of Ceratina smaragdula] guard their nest entrances by blocking them with the abdominal terga and probably by utilizing their sting in defense.”

References:
  • Camargo JMF, Velthuis HHW (1979) Sobre o comportamento de Xylocopa (Megaxylocopa) frontalis (Olivier) (Hymenoptera-Anthophoridae). Dusenia 11: 35–39.
  • Danforth BN (1991) The morphology and behavior of dimorphic males in Perdita portalis (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 235–247.
  • Hefetz A, Batra SWT, Blum MS (1979) Chemistry of the mandibular gland secretion of the Indian bee Pithis smaragdula. Journal of Chemical Ecology 5: 753–758.
  • Houston TF (1970) Discovery of an apparent male soldier caste in a nest of a halictine bee (Hymenoptera: Halictidae), with notes on the nest. Australian Journal of Zoology 18: 345–351.
  • Kerr WE (1997) Sex determination in honey bees (Apinae and Meliponinae) and its consequences. Brazilian Journal of Genetics 20.
  • Kislow CJ (1976) The comparative biology of two species of small carpenter bees, Ceratina strenua F. Smith and C. calcarata Robertson (Hymenoptera, Xylocopinae). University of Georgia
  • Rayment T (1935) A Cluster of Bees. Endeavour Press, Sydney, 752 pp.
  • Scholz E, Wittmann D (1987) Bionomy of five xylocopine bee species in Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. In: Eder J, Rembold H (Eds), Chemistry and Biology of Social insects. Verlag J. Peperny, Munchen, 726.
  • Timberlake PH (1980) Supplementary studies on the systematics of the genus Perdita (Hymenoptera, Andrenidae). Part II. University of California Publications in Entomology 85: 1–65.
0 Comments

Analyzing bee functional traits, a helpful* 10-point guide.

3/28/2019

2 Comments

 
*guide not actually helpful
  1. When assigning traits to a given species, never cite primary sources. That wastes valuable time you could be using to yell at R.
  2. If you find a significant result, giving the p-value and the trait is enough. The individual species driving that effect are unimportant. Do not bother discussing them.
  3. We don’t know which traits are biologically relevant, so just focus on the ones that are easiest to measure.
  4. When dividing traits into categories, do not provide category definitions. If you must do so, make sure to use vague and broad terms.
  5. If you don’t know a trait for a given species, just select one that seems right. No one will know or care.
  6. Never acknowledge that there is any uncertainty in which traits a bee has. Doing so would make you look weak and ignorant.
  7. Pollen specialization and floral visitation are essentially the same thing, so treat them as such and use the terms interchangeably.
  8. It doesn’t matter if your data set is rough around the edges as long as you have enough data points.
  9. Yes, of course you can identify all your Dialictus by yourself. They’re all the same from an ecological standpoint anyways so it doesn’t matter if you get some wrong.
  10. Make sure to follow tradition and classify a well-documented solitary species as social. Double points if it’s Agapostemon or Andrenidae.
2 Comments

The stickiness of Onagraceae pollen

7/6/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture
Oenothera pollen on the anthers.
I am particularly fascinated by how the properties of host pollen affect bees. I discuss this topic a bit in my paper “Convergent evolution of pollen transport mode in two distantly related bee genera (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae and Melittidae).” In that paper, I suggest that the properties of pollen could influence how it is carried. In particular, it seems that very sticky pollen types are often carried in a dry state, even in bee groups where most species moisten the pollen in order to carry it.

The plant family Onagraceae is particularly well-known for having sticky pollen. It has been well-documented that Onagraceae pollen has “viscin threads” which make the pollen sticky and difficult to handle (Linsley and MacSwain 1958, Roberts and Vallespir 1978, Hesse 1981). In fact, many Onagraceae-specialist bees have evolved specialized pollen-transporting hairs in order to effectively manipulate the pollen (Linsley 1958, Thorp 1979).
Picture
Picture
However, it’s hard to get a sense of what exactly is meant by “viscin threads,” especially since if you look up “viscin” in the dictionary, it refers to the mucous-like substance in Mistletoe fruits.

I believe the term “cobwebby” is the most accurate synonym for “viscin threads.” I feel like it captures the sticky, but not too sticky, nature of the threads. In my experience, these viscin threads adhere in a very similar manner to cobwebs, since their adherence feels more like it is due to static cling of the filamentous threads rather than to any inherent stickiness in the threads themselves.

One last thing I want to mention about Onagraceae pollen is that I commonly see two distinct size-classes in the pollen, big grains and small grains. I have never seen this mentioned before in the literature and I don’t know why this happens, but it seems to be fairly consistent in different individual plants and even different species. I had noticed different-sized Onagraceae pollen in the scopa of bees previously, and had initially chalked it up to them visiting multiple species of Onagraceae. However, now it’s not clear whether that is the case.
Picture
Zoomed-in photo demonstrating the different sizes of pollen.
References

Hesse M (1981) Pollenkitt and viscin threads: their role in cementing pollen grains. Grana 20: 37–41.

Linsley E (1958) The ecology of solitary bees. Hilgardia 27: 543–585.

Linsley EG, MacSwain JW (1958) The significance of floral constancy among bees of the genus Diadasia (Hymenoptera, Anthophoridae). Evolution 12: 219–223.

Roberts RB, Vallespir SR (1978) Specialization of hairs bearing pollen and oil on the legs of bees (Apoidea: Hymenoptera). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 71: 619–627.

Thorp RW (1979) Structural, behavioral, and physiological adaptations of bees (Apoidea) for collecting pollen. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 66: 788–812.
1 Comment

Applying for the NSF GRFP

9/20/2016

0 Comments

 
​I received an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program fellowship in 2011. I applied for the GRFP at the same time I was applying to grad school, so I submitted the application before I was accepted to grad school and heard from both around the same time. I proposed to revise the taxonomy of a group of native bees. The stipend and educational expenses from the GRFP were integral to my success as a grad student. In particular, it allowed me the time and energy to pursue additional avenues that grew out of my original research. I can confidently state that without the GRFP I would not have been nearly as successful and would potentially have dropped out of grad school.

I recently applied for an NSF postdoc award, and I was able to get my hands on some applications from successful applicants. Their willingness to share has inspired me to make my own GRFP application publicly available. Over the years I’ve shared my GRFP application with various people who have asked for it, though that number has probably been less than 10.

When I was putting together my application, my primary guide was the extremely helpful article by Philip Guo: http://www.pgbovine.net/fellowship-tips.htm [Update: that link is now dead and I haven't been able to find it anywhere unfortunately]. In that article, he provides an in-depth guide on why and how to apply for the GRFP and other fellowships. He also provides copies of his application and links to two others. The format of the GRFP application has changed somewhat (from three parts to two) since they and I submitted our applications, but the core concepts remain the same.

The advice I have for people applying to the NSF GRFP is to focus on the personal element of the application and to demonstrate a pattern of determination and curiosity about science in general. One of the main mistakes I see in other people who apply for the GRFP is that they focus almost entirely on their research proposal and neglecting the personal elements. It’s important to remember that the purpose of the GRFP is to nurture promising scientists, not necessarily to fund the best scientific proposals (although these often go together).

With that said, here are the links to my GRFP documents [all in pdf format]: personal statement, previous research, research proposal, and the reviewer comments. One quick note: I accidentally forgot to save the very last versions of my application, so I think there are a couple spelling or punctuation errors that didn't make it into the final version. 
0 Comments

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

  • Research
  • Publications
  • Identification
  • Writing
  • Resources