Both the author and the lecturer talk about whether bees existed two hundred million years ago. In the passage the author argues that there are three major evidences which convince the critical opinion. All these information are completely refute by the lecturer.First of all, in the passage, the remains of the bees which date to two hundred million years ago hasn't been found since the earliest fosilized body of bee is only 100 million years old. On the contrary, the lecturer states that the formation of the fossil is resisted by the natural condition. This is because bees could only get fossilized with resin which is a sticky liquid cultivated by curtain kinds of trees. Nevertheless, the amount of the trees was very small two hundred million years ago. Thus, although the bees actually existed, they couldn't get fossilized.Moreover, the author believes that there was no food supply for the bees 200 million years ago, because the earliest flowering plants appears 125 million years ago and there's a firm mutual relationship between bees and flowers nowadays. However, the lecturer suggests that the early bees could have fed on non-flowering plants such as ferns, or pine trees. Afterwards, when the flowering plants came into view, they adapted to feeding on them.
Last but not least, according to the passage, the nest may not be the nest of bee as it lacks the crucial dedails which include caps which have spiral patter. It is likely that it was the nest of other insects. The lecturer opposed the opinion with the fact that the fossilize nest have the same water-proof substance with the bee nests today.
Last but not least, according to the passage, the nest may not be the nest of bee as it lacks the crucial dedails which include caps which have spiral patter. It is likely that it was the nest of other insects. The lecturer opposed the opinion with the fact that the fossilize nest have the same water-proof substance with the bee nests today.
