>The article was sited as proof that there was a honeybee, similar to the current honeybee being kept today. It did not classify the bee as a honeybee, nor make any relationship to today's honeybee.
"The first is the same as the common bee of Europe, with which it agrees, not only in size, shape and color, but also in its disposition and manners, and in the qualities of its honey and wax." Sounds like a honey bee.
>I have never read any accounts of North American tribes keeping bees or using honey.
I do know the Lakota had a name for honey and honey bees and it's not just a "made up" name like they have for monkeys and camels and other non-native things.
>The time frame of the author / text puts it 200 years after colonization. The text does not discuss the origin of these bees.
Except the writer is under the impression they are native bees.
>Yes, I know all about Dee Lusby's claims.
Interesting, having had many long conversations both on line and by voice, I've never heard Dee Lusby CLAIM anything about Native American Bees. I HAVE heard her ask the question whether they exist/esisted or not and heard her say she would like to know the answer to that question.
Lucky for you, Jim, you already know the answer.
Of course when I was a kid there was no proof that the Vikings ever came here before Columbus and to insunuate the possibility was verbotten in educated circles. Don't even think about the Celts coming here before that. That's just preposterous.