arxiv: 2603.20312 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-19 · 🧬 q-bio.PE · cond-mat.mes-hall· cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Broad presence of ferromagnetism in bees and relationship to phylogeny, natural history, and sociality

Laura Russo , Caleb Allen , Cameron S. Jorgensen , Lizabeth Quigley , C. Charlotte Buchanan , Michael Winklhofer , Se\'an G. Brady , Laurence Packer

show 2 more authors

Anne Murray Dustin A. Gilbert

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords magnetoreceptionferromagnetic particlesbeesphylogenysocial behaviorbody sizeinsect navigationAnthophila

0 comments

The pith

Ferromagnetic particles for putative magnetoreception occur in most tested bee species and predate bee evolution.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The study screened 96 bee species plus outgroups for ferromagnetic particles that could support sensing Earth's magnetic field. Signals appeared in 72 species with no detectable pattern tied to their evolutionary relationships. The same particles showed up in non-bee insects, indicating the underlying capacity arose before the bee clade itself. Signal strength differed among species and increased in larger-bodied and more social bees. These patterns imply magnetoreception is a widespread, ancient feature rather than a specialized adaptation limited to certain lifestyles.

Core claim

Putative magnetoreception based on ferromagnetic particles is widespread across a diversity of bee species (72 out of 96 species tested), with no phylogenetic signal. The capacity is also present in non-bee outgroups, suggesting it predates the evolution of the Anthophila. While signals occur across varied life-history traits, their strength increases with body size and social behavior.

What carries the argument

Ferromagnetic particles detected via magnetometry in bee and outgroup samples, taken as the physical basis for putative magnetoreception.

If this is right

Magnetoreception capacity is likely present in the majority of bee species independent of their specific phylogenetic position.
Larger bees carry stronger magnetic signals, consistent with more particles or greater detection range.
Social species exhibit stronger signals than solitary ones, suggesting a possible role in group coordination or communication.
The trait's presence in outgroups means any functional use of magnetic cues in bees is built on an older insect capability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Behavioral experiments that block magnetic fields could test whether the particles actually guide navigation or foraging in live bees.
Within-species variation in signal strength might track differences in age, foraging experience, or local magnetic environment.
Urban electromagnetic noise could disproportionately affect larger or social bee species if the particles prove functional.
Mapping signal strength directly against measured behavioral responses to magnets would clarify the link between detection and use.

Load-bearing premise

The ferromagnetic signals detected in the samples reflect biologically functional magnetoreception particles rather than artifacts, contamination, or unrelated magnetic material.

What would settle it

Repeating the measurements on bees whose bodies have been cleaned of external particles and showing that the internal signals disappear or fail to respond to applied magnetic fields.

read the original abstract

Scientists have long been fascinated by magnetoreception, the innate capacity of many animals to sense and use the Earth's magnetic field for navigation. In eusocial insects like honey bees, magnetoreception has been linked to communication and foraging. However, little is known about magnetoreception's phylogenetic patterns and relationship to species traits and natural history. Here, we demonstrate that putative magnetoreception based on ferromagnetic particles is widespread across a diversity of bee species (72 out of 96 species tested), with no phylogenetic signal. We also detected such putative magnetoreception in non-bee outgroups, suggesting this magnetic capacity predates the evolution of the Anthophila. While magnetic signals were found across a diversity of life history traits, the strength of the magnetic signal varied within and between species, and increased with body size and social behavior.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

New survey data on ferromagnetic signals across 96 bee species is the main addition, but without methods or controls the functional claims stay shaky.

read the letter

The paper's core contribution is a wider species survey: they report ferromagnetic signals in 72 of 96 bees plus some non-bee outgroups, no phylogenetic signal, and a positive link between signal strength, body size, and sociality. That expands the picture beyond the usual honeybee work and gives concrete counts that prior papers lacked. If the measurements are clean, it could help frame questions about when this capacity evolved and why it scales with those traits. The authors do lay out the phylogenetic spread and trait correlations explicitly, which is useful raw material for anyone tracking sensory evolution in insects. The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags. The abstract and available details give no sample-prep protocol, no negative controls for soil or pollen contamination, no tissue localization, and no error bars or statistical tests. Bigger or more social bees could simply pick up more environmental magnetic dust, which would produce the same pattern without any biological magnetoreception. Until those controls appear, the jump from detected particles to functional navigation capacity is not secure. This is for readers who follow magnetoreception or insect phylogeny and want the expanded species list to design follow-up experiments. It is not yet ready for strong citation on the functional side. A serious editor should send it to review so the methods and raw data can be checked directly; the survey itself is worth that step even if heavy revision follows.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that ferromagnetic signals indicative of putative magnetoreception are present in 72 out of 96 tested bee species with no detectable phylogenetic signal, are also found in non-bee outgroups (suggesting the capacity predates the Anthophila), and that signal strength varies within and between species while increasing with body size and social behavior.

Significance. If the measurements prove robust after controls for contamination and appropriate statistical validation, the result would indicate that ferromagnetic-based magnetoreception is an ancient, widespread trait across bees and related insects, potentially linked to the evolution of sociality and body size; this would provide a new phylogenetic and ecological context for magnetoreception studies in Hymenoptera.

major comments (3)

[Methods] Methods: the manuscript supplies no description of sample-preparation protocols, negative controls for environmental magnetic dust/soil/pollen contamination, or tissue-specific localization of particles; without these the central claim that the signals represent endogenous, biologically functional magnetoreception particles cannot be evaluated.
[Results] Results: the abstract and summary state counts (72/96) and correlations with body size and sociality but report neither the measurement technique, statistical tests, error bars, raw-data summaries, nor any quantification of within-species variation; this prevents verification that the reported patterns are supported by the data.
[Discussion] Discussion: the interpretation that the detected signals predate the Anthophila and correlate with social behavior rests on the assumption that the ferromagnetic material is functional magnetoreception particles rather than contamination or non-functional deposits; no falsification tests or alternative explanations are addressed.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it briefly named the magnetometry method employed and the number of individuals per species.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important areas for improving clarity and rigor. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] Methods: the manuscript supplies no description of sample-preparation protocols, negative controls for environmental magnetic dust/soil/pollen contamination, or tissue-specific localization of particles; without these the central claim that the signals represent endogenous, biologically functional magnetoreception particles cannot be evaluated.

Authors: We agree that the Methods section required expansion for full reproducibility. The revised manuscript now includes detailed sample-preparation protocols (collection, storage, and handling to minimize external particles), explicit negative controls (blank measurements and environmental dust/pollen samples processed identically), and clarification that measurements were performed on whole specimens. Tissue-specific localization was not feasible within the scope of this broad phylogenetic survey; we now state this limitation explicitly and identify it as a priority for follow-up studies. These additions allow direct evaluation of the endogenous nature of the signals. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results: the abstract and summary state counts (72/96) and correlations with body size and sociality but report neither the measurement technique, statistical tests, error bars, raw-data summaries, nor any quantification of within-species variation; this prevents verification that the reported patterns are supported by the data.

Authors: We acknowledge that the Results presentation was insufficiently detailed. The full manuscript describes the measurement technique (SQUID magnetometry) and the statistical framework (phylogenetic generalized least squares regressions for body-size and sociality correlations, with Pagel's lambda for phylogenetic signal). In the revision we have added error bars to all figures, included a supplementary table with raw signal values and within-species standard deviations/ranges, and reported the specific test statistics and p-values. These changes enable independent verification of the 72/96 count and the reported correlations. revision: yes
Referee: [Discussion] Discussion: the interpretation that the detected signals predate the Anthophila and correlate with social behavior rests on the assumption that the ferromagnetic material is functional magnetoreception particles rather than contamination or non-functional deposits; no falsification tests or alternative explanations are addressed.

Authors: The Discussion already frames the signals as 'putative' magnetoreception particles and notes the absence of phylogenetic signal. We have expanded this section to explicitly consider alternative explanations (environmental contamination, non-functional iron deposits) and to explain why the consistent detection across independent collections and the correlation with body size favor an endogenous interpretation. While dedicated falsification experiments (e.g., demagnetization or behavioral assays) were outside the present survey, we now acknowledge this gap and outline targeted tests for future work. The phylogenetic and ecological patterns remain valid as descriptive results regardless of the precise functional status of the particles. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on direct empirical measurements of magnetic signals across species.

full rationale

The paper reports experimental detection of ferromagnetic signals in 72/96 bee species plus outgroups, with correlations to body size and sociality. No derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation load-bearing steps are present. All central claims are grounded in sample measurements rather than reducing to inputs by construction. This is the expected outcome for a purely observational phylogenetic survey.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that magnetic measurements detect biologically relevant ferromagnetic particles for magnetoreception.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Magnetic measurements on bee samples accurately reflect endogenous ferromagnetic particles without significant contamination or preparation artifacts.
Invoked when interpreting detected signals as putative magnetoreception.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5490 in / 1244 out tokens · 65491 ms · 2026-05-15T08:13:44.384624+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We measured the magnetic response of 185 insect specimens... hysteresis loops... saturation magnetization (MS), remanence (MR), coercivity (HC)
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

no phylogenetic signal... Blomberg's K statistic... K = 0.24 for HC

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

magnetic map

and has also been suggested to occur in four other eusocial bee species: two species of bumble bees Bombus impatiens (25) and Bombus terrestris (Nilsson, 2013; but see Taylor, 2024), and two stingless bees, Tetragonisca angustula (28) and Schwarziana quadripunctata (29); these five species represent the cumulative knowledge of magnetoreception in bees ( A...

work page 2013
[2]

nonmagnetic

magnetic properties were restricted to bees or could be found in other insects. Results 7 We measured the magnetic response of 185 insect specimens, including 138 bee specimens representing 96 species or morphospecies in six families (Andrenidae, Apidae, Colletidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae, and Melittidae). We included bee species that exhibit a range of...

work page
[3]

Viguier, Le Sens De L’orientation Et Ses Organes Chez Les Animaux Et Chez L’homme

C. Viguier, Le Sens De L’orientation Et Ses Organes Chez Les Animaux Et Chez L’homme. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger 14, 1–36 (1882)

work page
[4]

Lindauer, H

M. Lindauer, H. Martin, Die Schwereorientierung der Bienen unter dem Einfluß des Erdmagnetfeldes. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 60, 219–243 (1968)

work page 1968
[5]

J. L. Kirschvink, D. S. Jones, B. J. MacFadden, Eds., Magnetite Biomineralization and Magnetoreception in Organisms: A New Biomagnetism (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1985; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4613-0313-8)vol. 5 of Topics in Geobiology

work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0313-8)vol 1985
[6]

Wiltschko, W

R. Wiltschko, W. Wiltschko, Magnetoreception. BioEssays 28, 157–168 (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

Dreyer, B

D. Dreyer, B. Frost, H. Mouritsen, A. Günther, K. Green, M. Whitehouse, S. Johnsen, S. Heinze, E. Warrant, The Earth’s magnetic field and visual landmarks steer migratory flight behavior in the nocturnal australian Bogong moth. Current Biology 28, 2160-2166.e5 (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

T. P. Quinn, Evidence for celestial and magnetic compass orientation in lake migrating sockeye salmon fry. J. Comp. Physiol. 137, 243–248 (1980)

work page 1980
[9]

L. C. Naisbett-Jones, N. F. Putman, M. M. Scanlan, D. L. G. Noakes, K. J. Lohmann, Magnetoreception in fishes: the effect of magnetic pulses on orientation of juvenile Pacific salmon. Journal of Experimental Biology 223, jeb222091 (2020)

work page 2020
[10]

K. J. Lohmann, N. D. Pentcheff, G. A. Nevitt, G. D. Stetten, R. K. Zimmer-Faust, H. E. Jarrard, L. C. Boles, Magnetic Orientation of Spiny Lobsters in the Ocean: Experiments with Undersea Coil Systems. Journal of Experimental Biology 198, 2041–2048 (1995)

work page 2041
[11]

The geomagnetic sense of crustaceans and its use in orientation and navigation

K. J. Lohmann, D. A. Ernst, “The geomagnetic sense of crustaceans and its use in orientation and navigation” in Nervous Systems and Control of Behavior (Oxford University Press, 2014)

work page 2014
[12]

Wiltschko, R

W. Wiltschko, R. Wiltschko, Magnetic orientation and magnetoreception in birds and other animals. J Comp Physiol A 191, 675–693 (2005)

work page 2005
[13]

K. J. Lohmann, S. D. Cain, S. A. Dodge, C. M. F. Lohmann, Regional Magnetic Fields as Navigational Markers for Sea Turtles. Science 294, 364–366 (2001)

work page 2001
[14]

K. J. Lohmann, N. F. Putman, C. M. Lohmann, The magnetic map of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 22, 336–342 (2012)

work page 2012
[15]

Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetoreception in migratory animals

H. Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetoreception in migratory animals. Nature 558, 50–59 (2018)

work page 2018
[16]

A. J. Riveros, R. B. Srygley, Do leafcutter ants, Atta colombica, orient their path-integrated home vector with a magnetic compass? Animal Behaviour 75, 1273–1281 (2008)

work page 2008
[17]

P. N. Fleischmann, R. Grob, V. L. Müller, R. Wehner, W. Rössler, The Geomagnetic Field Is a Compass Cue in Cataglyphis Ant Navigation. Current Biology 28, 1440-1444.e2 (2018). 29

work page 2018
[18]

Hsu, C.-W

C.-Y. Hsu, C.-W. Li, Magnetoreception in Honeybees. Science 265, 95–97 (1994)

work page 1994
[19]

M. da G. C. Pereira-Bomfim, W. F. Antonialli-Junior, D. Acosta-Avalos, Magnetoreception in Social Wasps: An Update. EntomoBrasilis 9, 01–05 (2016)

work page 2016
[20]

J. L. Gould, J. L. Kirschvink, K. S. Deffeyes, Bees Have Magnetic Remanence. Science 201, 1026– 1028 (1978)

work page 1978
[21]

D. A. Kuterbach, B. Walcott, Iron-containing cells in the honey-bee (Apis mellifera): I. Adult morphology and physiology. Journal of Experimental Biology 126, 375–387 (1986)

work page 1986
[22]

M. M. Walker, M. E. Bitterman, Conditioning analysis of magnetoreception in honeybees. Bioelectromagnetics 10, 261–275 (1989)

work page 1989
[23]

Ferreira, G

J. Ferreira, G. Cernicchiaro, M. Winklhofer, H. Dutra, P. S. de Oliveira, D. M. S. Esquivel, E. Wajnberg, Comparative magnetic measurements on social insects. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 289, 442–444 (2005)

work page 2005
[24]

Hsu, F.-Y

C.-Y. Hsu, F.-Y. Ko, C.-W. Li, K. Fann, J.-T. Lue, Magnetoreception System in Honeybees (Apis mellifera). PLOS ONE 2, e395 (2007)

work page 2007
[25]

Válková, M

T. Válková, M. Vácha, How do honeybees use their magnetic compass? Can they see the North? Bulletin of Entomological Research 102, 461–467 (2012)

work page 2012
[26]

Liang, C.-L

C.-H. Liang, C.-L. Chuang, J.-A. Jiang, E.-C. Yang, Magnetic Sensing through the Abdomen of the Honey bee. Sci Rep 6, 23657 (2016)

work page 2016
[27]

Chittka, N

L. Chittka, N. M. Williams, H. Rasmussen, J. D. Thomson, Navigation without vision: bumblebee orientation in complete darkness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 266, 45–50 (1999)

work page 1999
[28]

Development of a behavioural assay to examine magnetosensitive behaviour in bumblebees,

V. Nilsson, “Development of a behavioural assay to examine magnetosensitive behaviour in bumblebees,” thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden (2013)

work page 2013
[29]

A Novel Automated Associative Conditioning Apparatus and its Application in Colour and Magnetic Conditioning of Bumble Bee Colonies (Bombus terrestris) - University of Otago,

A. G. Taylor, “A Novel Automated Associative Conditioning Apparatus and its Application in Colour and Magnetic Conditioning of Bumble Bee Colonies (Bombus terrestris) - University of Otago,” thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand (2024)

work page 2024
[30]

D. M. S. Esquivel, E. Wajnberg, F. S. do Nascimento, M. B. Pinho, H. G. P. L. de Barros, R. Eizemberg, Do geomagnetic storms change the behaviour of the stingless bee guiruçu (Schwarziana quadripunctata)? Naturwissenschaften 94, 139–142 (2007)

work page 2007
[31]

D. M. S. Esquivel, A. A. C. Corrêa, O. S. Vaillant, V. B. de Melo, G. S. Gouvêa, C. G. Ferreira, T. A. Ferreira, E. Wajnberg, A time-compressed simulated geomagnetic storm influences the nest- exiting flight angles of the stingless bee Tetragonisca angustula. Naturwissenschaften 101, 245– 249 (2014). 30

work page 2014
[32]

Wajnberg, D

E. Wajnberg, D. Acosta-Avalos, O. C. Alves, J. F. de Oliveira, R. B. Srygley, D. M. S. Esquivel, Magnetoreception in eusocial insects: an update. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 7, S207– S225 (2010)

work page 2010
[33]

Martin, M

H. Martin, M. Lindauer, Der Einfluß des Erdmagnetfeldes auf die Schwereorientierung der Honigbiene (Apis mellifica). J. Comp. Physiol. 122, 145–187 (1977)

work page 1977
[34]

The magnetic sense of honey bees - analyses of underlying mechanisms and potential function,

V. Lambinet, “The magnetic sense of honey bees - analyses of underlying mechanisms and potential function,” thesis, Simon Fraser University, Canada (2017)

work page 2017
[35]

P. N. Fleischmann, R. Grob, W. Rössler, Magnetoreception in Hymenoptera: importance for navigation. Anim Cogn 23, 1051–1061 (2020)

work page 2020
[36]

Sociality in Bees

W. Wcislo, J. H. Fewell, “Sociality in Bees” in Comparative Social Evolution, D. R. Rubenstein, P. Abbot, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017; https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/comparative-social-evolution/sociality-in- bees/EDB3BC0012570CEEF1237E662563B4FD), pp. 50–83

work page 2017
[37]

Danforth, R

B. Danforth, R. Minckley, J. Neff, F. Fawcett, The Solitary Bees: Biology, Evolution, Conservation (Princeton University Press, 2019)

work page 2019
[38]

J. L. Kirschvink, M. M. Walker, C. E. Diebel, Magnetite-based magnetoreception. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 11, 462–467 (2001)

work page 2001
[39]

Vácha, D

M. Vácha, D. Drštková, T. Půžová, Tenebrio beetles use magnetic inclination compass. Naturwissenschaften 95, 761–765 (2008)

work page 2008
[40]

M. J. Freake, R. Muheim, J. B. Phillips, Magnetic Maps in Animals: A Theory Comes of Age? The Quarterly Review of Biology 81, 327–347 (2006)

work page 2006
[41]

Ne’eman, O

G. Ne’eman, O. Shavit, L. Shaltiel, A. Shmida, Foraging by Male and Female Solitary Bees with Implications for Pollination. J Insect Behav 19, 383–401 (2006)

work page 2006
[42]

G. P. Smith, J. L. Bronstein, D. R. Papaj, Sex differences in pollinator behavior: patterns across species and consequences for the mutualism. Journal of Animal Ecology 88, 971–985 (2019)

work page 2019
[43]

K. R. Urban-Mead, E. Walter, S. H. McArt, B. N. Danforth, Nearly half of spring-flying male Andrena bees consume pollen, but less than female conspecifics. Apidologie 53, 49 (2022)

work page 2022
[44]

Garcia Bulle Bueno, B

F. Garcia Bulle Bueno, B. Garcia Bulle Bueno, G. Buchmann, T. Heard, T. Latty, B. P. Oldroyd, A. E. Hosoi, R. Gloag, Males Are Capable of Long-Distance Dispersal in a Social Bee. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10 (2022)

work page 2022
[45]

M. D. Breed, C. Cook, M. O. Krasnec, Cleptobiosis in Social Insects. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology 2012, 484765 (2012)

work page 2012
[46]

S. S. Greenleaf, N. M. Williams, R. Winfree, C. Kremen, Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596 (2007). 31

work page 2007
[47]

Magnetoreception of invertebrates

M. Vacha, “Magnetoreception of invertebrates” in The Oxford Handbook of Invertebrate Neurobiology (Oxford University Press, New York, 2019), pp. 367–387

work page 2019
[48]

Schulten, C

K. Schulten, C. E. Swenberg, A. Weller, A Biomagnetic Sensory Mechanism Based on Magnetic Field Modulated Coherent Electron Spin Motion. Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie 111, 1–5 (1978)

work page 1978
[49]

Winklhofer, J

M. Winklhofer, J. L. Kirschvink, A quantitative assessment of torque-transducer models for magnetoreception. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 7, S273–S289 (2010)

work page 2010
[50]

J. Shaw, A. Boyd, M. House, R. Woodward, F. Mathes, G. Cowin, M. Saunders, B. Baer, Magnetic particle-mediated magnetoreception. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12, 20150499 (2015)

work page 2015
[51]

D. M. W. Sheppard, J. Li, K. B. Henbest, S. R. T. Neil, K. Maeda, J. Storey, E. Schleicher, T. Biskup, R. Rodriguez, S. Weber, P. J. Hore, C. R. Timmel, S. R. Mackenzie, Millitesla magnetic field effects on the photocycle of an animal cryptochrome. Sci Rep 7, 42228 (2017)

work page 2017
[52]

R. J. Gegear, A. Casselman, S. Waddell, S. M. Reppert, Cryptochrome mediates light-dependent magnetosensitivity in Drosophila. Nature 454, 1014–1018 (2008)

work page 2008
[53]

Bassetto, T

M. Bassetto, T. Reichl, D. Kobylkov, D. R. Kattnig, M. Winklhofer, P. J. Hore, H. Mouritsen, No evidence for magnetic field effects on the behaviour of Drosophila. Nature 620, 595–599 (2023)

work page 2023
[54]

J. L. Kirschvink, J. L. Gould, Biogenic magnetite as a basis for magnetic field detection in animals. Biosystems 13, 181–201 (1981)

work page 1981
[55]

Morphology and Elemental Composition of Metal Based Granules in Wings of Bumblebees

K. Dědková, P. Jandačka, R. Váňa, J. Kukutschová, N. Vítkovská, “Morphology and Elemental Composition of Metal Based Granules in Wings of Bumblebees” in Improved Performance of Materials: Design and Experimental Approaches, A. Öchsner, H. Altenbach, Eds. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59590-0_17), pp. 207– 218

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59590-0_17 2018
[56]

Jandacka, B

P. Jandacka, B. Kasparova, Y. Jiraskova, K. Dedkova, K. Mamulova-Kutlakova, J. Kukutschova, Iron- based granules in body of bumblebees. Biometals 28, 89–99 (2015)

work page 2015
[57]

J. D. P. Serna, O. C. Alves, F. Abreu, D. Acosta-Avalos, Magnetite in the abdomen and antennae of Apis mellifera honeybees. J Biol Phys 50, 215–228 (2024)

work page 2024
[58]

M. J. Lucano, G. Cernicchiaro, E. Wajnberg, D. M. S. Esquivel, Stingless Bee Antennae: A Magnetic Sensory Organ? Biometals 19, 295–300 (2006)

work page 2006
[59]

Wajnberg, G

E. Wajnberg, G. Cernicchiaro, D. Motta de Souza Esquivel, Antennae: the strongest magnetic part of the migratory ant. Biometals 17, 467–470 (2004)

work page 2004
[60]

L. G. Abraçado, D. M. S. Esquivel, E. Wajnberg, Oriented magnetic material in head and antennae of Solenopsis interrupta ant. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 320, e204–e206 (2008). 32

work page 2008
[61]

J. F. de Oliveira, E. Wajnberg, D. M. de Souza Esquivel, S. Weinkauf, M. Winklhofer, M. Hanzlik, Ant antennae: are they sites for magnetoreception? Journal of The Royal Society Interface 7, 143–152 (2009)

work page 2009
[62]

O. C. Alves, E. Wajnberg, J. F. de Oliveira, D. M. S. Esquivel, Magnetic material arrangement in oriented termites: a magnetic resonance study. Journal of Magnetic Resonance 168, 246–251 (2004)

work page 2004
[63]

F. Brem, G. Stamm, A. M. Hirt, Modeling the magnetic behavior of horse spleen ferritin with a two- phase core structure. J. Appl. Phys. 99, 123906 (2006)

work page 2006
[64]

N. J. O. Silva, Temperature dependence of antiferromagnetic susceptibility in ferritin. Phys. Rev. B 79 (2009)

work page 2009
[65]

Q. Li, C. W. Kartikowati, S. Horie, T. Ogi, T. Iwaki, K. Okuyama, Correlation between particle size/domain structure and magnetic properties of highly crystalline Fe3O4 nanoparticles. Sci Rep 7, 9894 (2017)

work page 2017
[66]

Winklhofer, K

M. Winklhofer, K. Fabian, F. Heider, Magnetic blocking temperatures of magnetite calculated with a three-dimensional micromagnetic model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 102, 22695–22709 (1997)

work page 1997
[67]

N. B. Edelman, T. Fritz, S. Nimpf, P. Pichler, M. Lauwers, R. W. Hickman, A. Papadaki- Anastasopoulou, L. Ushakova, T. Heuser, G. P. Resch, M. Saunders, J. A. Shaw, D. A. Keays, No evidence for intracellular magnetite in putative vertebrate magnetoreceptors identified by magnetic screening. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 262–267 (2015)

work page 2015
[68]

G. V. Lomaev, N. V. Bondareva, Magnetic parameters of the bees Apis mellifera mellifera (L.) obtained by SQUID-magnetometry. Biofizika 49, 1118–1120 (2004)

work page 2004
[69]

Brodschneider, U

R. Brodschneider, U. Riessberger-Gallé, K. Crailsheim, Flight performance of artificially reared honeybees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 40, 441–449 (2009)

work page 2009
[70]

M. de F. Ribeiro, T. Wenseleers, P. de S. S. Filho, D. de A. Alves, Miniature queens in stingless bees: basic facts and evolutionary hypotheses. Apidologie 37, 191–206 (2006)

work page 2006
[71]

Henríquez-Piskulich, A

P. Henríquez-Piskulich, A. F. Hugall, D. Stuart-Fox, A supermatrix phylogeny of the world’s bees (Hymenoptera: Anthophila). Mol Phylogenet Evol 190, 107963 (2024)

work page 2024
[72]

S. P. Blomberg, T. Garland, A. R. Ives, Testing for Phylogenetic Signal in Comparative Data: Behavioral Traits Are More Labile. Evolution 57, 717–745 (2003)

work page 2003
[73]

E. A. B. Almeida, S. Bossert, B. N. Danforth, D. S. Porto, F. V. Freitas, C. C. Davis, E. A. Murray, B. B. Blaimer, T. Spasojevic, P. R. Ströher, M. C. Orr, L. Packer, S. G. Brady, M. Kuhlmann, M. G. Branstetter, M. R. Pie, The evolutionary history of bees in time and space. Current Biology 33, 3409-3422.e6 (2023)

work page 2023
[74]

Merlin, Insect magnetoreception: a Cry for mechanistic insights

C. Merlin, Insect magnetoreception: a Cry for mechanistic insights. J Comp Physiol A 209, 785–792 (2023). 33

work page 2023
[75]

E. B. Rubin, Y. Shemesh, M. Cohen, S. Elgavish, H. M. Robertson, G. Bloch, Molecular and phylogenetic analyses reveal mammalian-like clockwork in the honey bee (Apis mellifera) and shed new light on the molecular evolution of the circadian clock. Genome Res 16, 1352–1365 (2006)

work page 2006
[76]

Robin Baker, J

R. Robin Baker, J. G. Mather, Magnetic compass sense in the large yellow underwing moth, Noctua pronuba L. Animal Behaviour 30, 543–548 (1982)

work page 1982
[77]

Warrant, M

E. Warrant, M. Dacke, Visual Orientation and Navigation in Nocturnal Arthropods. Brain Behavior and Evolution 75, 156–173 (2010)

work page 2010
[78]

Magnetoreception

R. Wiltschko, W. Wiltschko, “Magnetoreception” in Sensing in Nature, C. López-Larrea, Ed. (Springer US, New York, NY, 2012; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1704-0_8), pp. 126–141. 34 Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge assistance from S. Droege (USGS) in identifying bee specimens collected by LR. We thank those who assisted with insect collec...

work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1704-0_8 2012