Stingless bees tongue morphology is different compared to honeybees

Ali, 2021, Proboscis behavioral response of four honey bee Apis species towards different concentration of sucrose, glucose and fructose, Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 28, 3275, 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.02.069 Amat, 2022, Gustatory function of sensilla chaetica on the labial palps and antennae of three tortricid moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), Sci. Rep., 12, 18882, 10.1038/s41598-022-21825-w Awad, 2014, Influence of different statuses of honey bee queens, Apis mellifera L. on the ultrastructure of the flagella on (3-day old) workers, J. Open Entomol., 8, 22, 10.2174/1874407901408010022 Basari, 2018, Food reward and distance influence the foraging pattern of Stingless bee, Heterotrigona itama, Insects., 9, 1, 10.3390/insects9040138 Basari, 2021, Flower morphology and nectar concentration determine the preferred food source of stingless bee, Heterotrigona itama, J. Asia Pac. Entomol., 24, 232, 10.1016/j.aspen.2021.02.005 Borrel, 2005, Long tongues and loose niches: Evolution of Euglosine bees and their nectar flowers, Biotropica, 37, 664, 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00084.x Duster, 2018, Drinking with a very long tongue: Functional morphology of orchid bee mouthparts (Euglossini, Apidae, hymenoptera), Arthropod Struct. Dev., 47, 25, 10.1016/j.asd.2017.12.004 Erickson, E.H., Carlson, S.D., Garmen, M.B., 2009. A Scanning Electron Microscope Atlas of the Honeybee. Retrived from: www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/20220500/AtlasoftheHoneybee.pdf. Johnson, B.R., 2010. Division of labor in honeybees: form, function, and proximate mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 305–316. Kim, 2011, Optimal concentrations in nectar feeding, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 16618, 10.1073/pnas.1108642108 Kumar, 2016, Scanning electron microscopeic study on the mouthparts of Apis florea (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Apidologie, 47, 717, 10.1007/s13592-015-0423-5 Kumar, 2014, Biodiversity in cavity nesting honey bees Apis cerana F. and Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apinae): ultrastrucure of mouthparts, J. Global Biodivers., 3, 787 Kumar, 2015, Scanning electron microscopic studies on tongue of open- nesting honey bees Apis dorsata F. and Apis florea F, J. Appl. Nat. Sci., 7, 324, 10.31018/jans.v7i1.609 Pokorny, T., Lunau, K., Eltzt. 2014. Raising the Sugar Content–Orchid Bees Overcome the Constraints of Suction Feeding. Nicolson, 2013, Honeybees prefer wamer nectar and less viscous nectar, regardless of sugar concentration, Proc. R. Soc. B, 280, 10.1098/rspb.2013.1597 Shi, 2017, Drag reduction in a natural high-frequency swinging micro-articulation: mouthparts of the honey bee, J. Insect Sci., 17, 30, 10.1093/jisesa/iew122 Sokolinskaya, E.L., Kolesov. D.V., Lukyanov, K.A., Bogdanov, A.M., 2020 Jul-Sep. Molecular principles of insect chemoreception. Acta Naturae 12(3), 81-91. 10.32607/actanaturae.11038. PMID: 33173598; PMCID: PMC7604898. Wang, 2022, Optimal kinetic of the bee tongue for viscous fluid transport, Soft Matter, 38, 7317, 10.1039/D2SM00832G Wang, 2021, Nectar feeding by honey bee’s hairy tongue: morphology, dynamics, and energy-saving strategies, Insects, 12, 726, 10.3390/insects12090762 Wei, 2022, Enhanced flexibility of the segmented honey bee tongue with hydrophobic tongue hairs, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 14, 12911, 10.1021/acsami.2c00431