The term 'sociality' describes a broad spectrum of behaviours in bees. It ranges from non-social, solitary species, through to species which share entrances to individual nest chambers, and finally to advanced social organisations consisting of very large colonies with many thousands of members.
Assigning bees to one particular category can be difficult, especially because bee species from the same genus may nevertheless vary in their degree of sociality.
In 2021, work by Da Silva1 [citing Cowan (1991), Wilson, (1971); Michener, (1974); Eickwort, (1981)] provided useful definitions of the different levels of social organizations of the insect order, Hymenoptera as follows:
Broad |
Narrow |
Presocial: |
Solitary: |
Subsocial: | |
Parasocial: |
Communal: |
Quasisocial: | |
Semisocial: | |
Eusocial: |
Primitively eusocial: |
Advanced eusocial: |
Note that all bees exhibiting social behaviour fit into the category of 'social', but the term 'social bee' can be further divided into different forms of sociality.
For further information, see my page about eusociality.
Within his paper, Da Silva further assigned a number of bee species to their specific group within the above defined sociality definitions.
It's interesting that many bees which tend to be labelled as 'solitary' actually demonstrate at least some form of sociality.
Furthermore, a whole genus cannot be assigned to one definition of sociality. It's apparent that the behaviours of each specific species needs to be considered.
It is perhaps fair to note that species are sometimes assigned to a particular genus at discovery, only to be switched to a different genus later, which can even result in a name change.
In a similar fashion, as investigation into bees develops further, the ways in which we assess them may change as our knowledge bank increases in depth and vigor.
It is also the case that scientists may not always agree about how bees are classified.
It is beyond the scope of this page to list every species mentioned, however, for illustrative purposes, some examples mentioned by Da Silva are as follows:
Lassioglossum occidens
Lassioglossum leucozonium
Lassioglossum zonulum
Centris rhodopus
Centris tarsata
Centris rufosuffusa
Epicharis nigrita
Epicharis metatarsalis
Eucera nigrilabris
Tetrapedia rugulosa
Melissodes druriellus
Ceratina flavipes
Ceratina chalybea
Xylocopa torrida
Xylcopa flavorufa
Lassioglossum nupricola
Lassioglossum opacum
Augochlora pura
Euglossa nigrita
Euglossa chapioni
Euglossa hyacinthina
Manuelia postica
Lassioglossum lusorium
Agepostemon texanus
Agepostemon angelicus
Agepostemon virescens
Agepostemon nasutus
Epicharis rustica
Caenohalictus eberhardorum
Xylocopa virginica
Xylocopa nigrita
Ceratina australensis
Augochloropsis sumptuosa
Lassioglossum sordidum
Examples Of Primitively Eusocial Bees
Ceratina japonica
Ceratina calcarata
Euglossa cordata
Euglossa townsendi
Euglossa melanotricha
Bombus hypnorum
Bombus jonellus
Bombus atratus
Bombus pensylvanicus
Bombus polaris
Bombus nevadensis
Bombus terrestris
Xylocopa pubescens
Xylocopa suspecta
Xylocopa frontalis
Lassioglossum albipes
Lassioglossum tenax
Lassioglossumopacum
Halictus sexcinctus
Halictus rubicundus
Halictus confusus
Halictus tumulorum
Halictus fulvipes
Halictus scabiosae
Augochlora aurata
Augochloropsis iris
Apis mellifera
Apis florea
Apis dorsata
Apis cerana
Melipona quadrifasciata
Melipona scutelaris
Liotrigona medecassa
1. da Silva J (2021) Life History and the Transitions to Eusociality in the Hymenoptera. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9:727124. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.727124