Bombus caliginosus - (Frison, 1927)
Obscure Bumble Bee
Synonym(s): Bombus (Pyrobombus) caliginosus (Frison, 1927)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Bombus caliginosus (Frison, 1927) (TSN 714792)
French Common Names: Bourdon obscur
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.819678
Element Code: IIHYM24380
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Bumble Bees
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Hymenoptera Apidae Bombus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Williams, P. H. 2008a. Bombus, bumblebees of the world. Web pages based on Williams, P.H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumblebees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum (Entomology) 67:79-152. Online. Available: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html. Accessed 2008-Oct.
Concept Reference Code: W08WIL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Bombus (Pyrobombus) caliginosus
Taxonomic Comments: Subgenus: Pyrobombus.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Jun2015
Global Status Last Changed: 05Jun2015
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: This is an uncommon species that has declined or disappeared in urban areas and is apparently uncommon in agricultural sections of Oregon. It had not been noted as in general decline by Xerces Society or others prior to Hatfield et al. (2014) who considered it vulnerable by IUCN criteria. The species is probably widely overlooked because it is very similar to common species. Confidence in assessments is low and this species may still be locally secure in relatively pristine areas or it may be be vulnerable in most of its range.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNR
Nation: Canada
National Status: NU (18Jun2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States California (S1S2), Oregon (S3), Washington (S3?)
Canada British Columbia (SU)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Known from the coast ranges from northern Washington to southern California and more recently from British Columbia (Wild Species report, 2015). Reports farther east in Arizona and Boulder, Colorado (Discover Life Website's range map) are dubious--especially since Kearns and Oliveras (2009) do not report the species either as current or historic from the Boulder area.

Number of Occurrences: Unknown

Population Size: Unknown

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown
Overall Threat Impact Comments: One would expect the usual threats from climate change and extensive development (at least in California) to apply. Habitat loss may be more serious for this species than most because it does not appear to do well in heavily agricultural regions and may fail to persist at all in more urbanized places like much of the San Francisco area.

Short-term Trend: Decline of >10%
Short-term Trend Comments: McFrederick and LeBuhn (2006) document an apparent decline around San Francisco, but do report a recent record from San Bruno Mountain, a well known refugium for rare butterflies and other animals. Their study suggests B. caliginosus does not do well in urban parks, and that it is out competed by B. vosnesenskii which can be very abundant in urban habitats. However well documented results from an urban area should not be assumed to apply more generally, and this species was not reported by Xerces or others to be declining generally until the Hatfield et al. (2014) asessment. Most members of this subgenus are fairly stable or increasing, although this appears to be an exception.  This species can easily be overlooked because of it close resemblance to B. vosnesenskii, especially by observers who do not collect actual voucher specimens and even by experts that do collect vouchers.  This may be a factor in the apparent decline reported by Hatfield et al. (2014), particularly in the last decade or so, and they urge caution in interpretation data for this species which at face value suggest a rleative decline of 64%, but do show recent records from near both ends of the known range. If the species is becoming more restricted to relatively undeveloped place as suggest by the McFrederick and LeBuhn (2006)  observations, that would also cause it to be overlooked relative to other species.  Thus there is more than usual uncertainty as to how severely this species is declining.  

Long-term Trend: Unknown

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Perhaps D. At any rate this is apparently one of the bumblebees that does not do well in urban parks and gardens or agricultural areas, which several others do (McFrederick and Lebuhn, 2006). Rao and Stephan (2010) were unable to confirm this species as cultivated blueberry or red clover in Oregon, but suspect that about 2-3% of records in Table 1 for the abundant N. vosnenskii were actually B. caliginosus. They do report it as visiting red clover in their Table 2.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Known from the coast ranges from northern Washington to southern California and more recently from British Columbia (Wild Species report, 2015). Reports farther east in Arizona and Boulder, Colorado (Discover Life Website's range map) are dubious--especially since Kearns and Oliveras (2009) do not report the species either as current or historic from the Boulder area.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CA, OR, WA
Canada BC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CA Alameda (06001), Calaveras (06009)*, Contra Costa (06013), Del Norte (06015), El Dorado (06017)*, Fresno (06019)*, Humboldt (06023), Kern (06029), Lake (06033)*, Marin (06041), Mariposa (06043)*, Mendocino (06045), Monterey (06053), Napa (06055)*, Placer (06061)*, Plumas (06063)*, Riverside (06065)*, San Benito (06069)*, San Bernardino (06071)*, San Diego (06073)*, San Francisco (06075), San Luis Obispo (06079), San Mateo (06081), Santa Barbara (06083), Santa Clara (06085)*, Santa Cruz (06087)*, Shasta (06089)*, Siskiyou (06093)*, Solano (06095)*, Sonoma (06097)*, Stanislaus (06099)*, Trinity (06105)*, Tulare (06107)*, Tuolumne (06109)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
17 Illinois (17100311)+*
18 Smith (18010101)+, Mad-Redwood (18010102)+, Upper Eel (18010103)+*, Middle Fork Eel (18010104)+*, Lower Eel (18010105)+*, South Fork Eel (18010106)+*, Mattole (18010107)+*, Big-Navarro-Garcia (18010108)+, Gualala-Salmon (18010109)+*, Russian (18010110)+*, Upper Klamath (18010206)+*, Shasta (18010207)+*, Lower Klamath (18010209)+*, Salmon (18010210)+*, Trinity (18010211)+*, South Fork Trinity (18010212)+*, Mccloud (18020004)+*, Sacramento headwaters (18020005)+*, Upper Cache (18020116)+*, North Fork Feather (18020121)+*, Upper Bear (18020126)+*, North Fork American (18020128)+*, South Fork American (18020129)+*, Upper Putah (18020162)+*, Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi- (18030003)+, Upper Kaweah (18030007)+*, Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes (18030012)+*, Middle San Joaquin-Lower (18040002)+*, San Joaquin Delta (18040003)+*, Upper San Joaquin (18040006)+*, Upper Merced (18040008)+*, Upper Tuolumne (18040009)+*, Upper Stanislaus (18040010)+*, Upper Calaveras (18040011)+*, Upper Mokelumne (18040012)+*, Suisun Bay (18050001)+*, San Pablo Bay (18050002)+, Coyote (18050003)+*, San Francisco Bay (18050004)+, Tomales-Drake Bays (18050005)+, San Francisco Coastal South (18050006)+*, San Lorenzo-Soquel (18060001)+*, Pajaro (18060002)+*, Estrella (18060004)+*, Salinas (18060005)+*, Central Coastal (18060006)+, Santa Ynez (18060010)+, Carmel (18060012)+*, Santa Barbara Channel Islands (18060014)+, San Jacinto (18070202)+*, Santa Ana (18070203)+*, San Diego (18070304)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 29Jun2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Abbott, V. A., J. L. Nadeau, H. A. Higo, and M. L. Winston. 2008. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of imidacloprid on Osmia lignaria and clothianidin on Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachildae). Journal of Economic Entomology 101:784-796.

  • Bhattacharya, M., R.B. Primack, and J. Gerwein. 2003. Are roads and railroads barriers to bumblebee movement in a temperate suburban conservation area? Biological Conservation 109(1):37-45.

  • Brown, M.J.F., and R.J. Paxton. 2009. The conservation of bees: a global perspective. Apidologie 40(3):410-416.

  • Byrne, A., and U. Fitzpatrick. 2009. Bee conservation policy at the global, regional and national levels. Apidologie 40(3):194-210.

  • Carvell, C. 2002. Habitat use and conservation of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) under different grasslands management regimes. Biological Conservation 103(1):33-49.

  • Colla, S., and L. Packer. 2008. Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special reference to Bombus affinis Cresson. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(6):1379-1391.

  • Colla, S.R, M.C Otterstatter, R.J. Gegear, and J.D. Thomson. 2006. Plight of the bumble bee: pathogen spillover from commercial to wild populations. Biological Conservation 129(4):461467.

  • Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America (M. Berenbaum, Chair). 2007. Status of pollinators in North America. National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 307 pp.

  • DeVore, B. 2009. A sticky situation for pollinators. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. 2 pp. Accessed September 13, 2009 at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/julaug09/pollinators.html.

  • Dramstad, W.E. 1996. Do Bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests? Journal of Insect Behavior 9(2):163-182.

  • Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepson and S. Hoffman-Black. 2008. Status Review of three formerly common species of bumble bees in the subgenus Bombus. The Xerces Society. 63 pp. Accessed at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf

  • Federman, A. Plight of the Bumblebee. Earth Island Journal, Autumn, 2009. Earth Island Institute. Online. Available: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/plight_of_the_bumblebee/

  • Fetridge, E.D, J.S. Ascher, and G. A. Langellotto. 2008. The bee fauna of residential gardens in a suburb of New York City (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101(6):1067-1077.

  • Frankie, G.W., R.W. Thorp, J. Hernandez, M. Rizzardi, B. Ertter, J.C. Pawelek, S.L. Witt, M. Schindler, R. Coville, and V.A. Wojcik. 2009. Native bees are a rich natural resource in urban California gardens. California Agriculture 63(3):113-120.

  • Goulson D., M.E. Hanley, B. Darvill, J.S. Ellis, and M.E. Knight. 2005. Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biological Conservation 122(1):1-8.

  • Grixti, J.C., L.T. Wong, S.A. Cameron, and C. Favret. 2009. Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biological Conservation 142(1):75-84.

  • Hatfield, R., S. Colla, S. Jepsen, L. Richardson, R. Thorp, and S. F. Jordan. 2014. IUCN assessments for North American Bombus spp. Technical report for the North American IUCN Bumble Bee Specialist Group. Assessments completed 2014, document updated in February 2015. 56 pp.

  • Hines, H., and S.D. Hendrix. 2005. Bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) diversity and abundance in tallgrass prairie patches: the effects of local and landscape features. Environmental Entomology 34(6):1477-1484.

  • Hopwood, J.L. 2008. The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biological Conservation 141(10):2632-2640.

  • Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2008. World Bee Checklist Project (version 03-Oct-2008). Integrated Taxonomic Information System: Biological Names. Online. Available: http://www.itis.gov.

  • Kearns, C. A., and D. M. Oliveras. 2009. Boulder County bees revisited: a resampling of Boulder Colorado bees a century later. Journal of Insect Conservation 13(6):603-613.

  • Longcore, T., C. Rich, and L. M. Sullivan. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology 23(4):887-894.

  • McFrederick, Q. S., and G. LeBuhn. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation 129(3):372-382 [includes corrigendum].

  • Noordijk, J., K. Delille, A.P. Schaffers, and K.V. Sıkora. 2009. Optimizing grassland management for flower-visiting insects in roadside verges. Biological Conservation 142(10):2097-2103.

  • Otterstatter, M.C., and J.D. Thomson. 2008. Does pathogen spillover from commercially reared bumble bees threaten wild pollinators? PLoS ONE 3(7): e2771.

  • Plath, O.E. 1922b. Notes on the nesting habits of several North American bumblebees. Psyche 29:189-202.

  • Plath, O.E. 1927. Notes on the nesting habits of some of the less common New England bumble-bees. Psyche 34:122-128.

  • Russell, K. N, H. Ikard, and S. Droege. 2005. The potential conservation value of unmowed powerline strips for native bees. Biological Conservation 124(1):Pages 133-148.

  • Schmidt, J.O., and R.S. Jacobson. 2005. Refugia, biodiversity, and pollination roles of bumble bees in the Madrean Archipelago. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-36. pages 127-130.

  • Schweitzer, D.F., N.A. Capuano, B.E. Young and S.R. Colla. 2012. Conservation and management of North American bumble bees. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, and USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 17 pp.

  • Super, P.E., and A.T. Moyer. 2003b. Bombus affinis Cresson, Bumble bee - Biodiversity of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. In: NPS, DLIA. 2007. Discover Life in America, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Online. Available: http://dlia.org/atbidata/SpeciesPage.php?ftaxon=Apidae&gtaxon=Bombus&staxon=affinis&sstaxon=

  • Thorp, R.W., D.S. Horning, and L.L Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: viii+79 pp.

  • Tuell, J.K., A.K. Fielder, D. Landis, and R. Isaacs. 2008. Visitation by wild and managed bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) to eastern U.S. native plants for use in conservation programs. Environmental Entomology 37(3):707-718.

  • Turnock, W.J., P.G. Kevan, T.M. Laverty, and L. Dumouchel. 2007. Abundance and species of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Bombinae) in fields of canola, Brassica rapa L., in Manitoba: an 8-year record. Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario 137:31-40.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status for the plant Silene spaldingii (Spalding's Catchfly). Federal Register 64(232): 67814-67821.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Draft recovery plan for the prairie species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. x + 212 pp. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/080922_1.pdf.

  • Williams, P. H. 2008a. Bombus, bumblebees of the world. Web pages based on Williams, P.H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumblebees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum (Entomology) 67:79-152. Online. Available: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html. Accessed 2008-Oct.

  • Williams, P., S. Colla, and Z. Xie. 2009c. Bumblebee vulnerability: common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. Conservation Biology 23(4):931-940.

  • Williams, P.H., R.W. Thorp, L.L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014b. Bumble bees of North America: an Identification Guide. Princeton University Press. 208 pp.

  • Wojcik, V.A., G.W. Frankie, R.W. Thorp, and J.L. Hernandez. 2008. Seasonality in Bees and Their Floral Resource Plants at a Constructed Urban Bee Habitat in Berkeley, California. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 81(1):15-28.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.