The material discusses if the nest that has been found in Arizona could resemble bees' nests. While the reading casts doubts that these structures were created by bees, the listening challenges this and points out that it is possible that these old fossilized structures were bees' nests, and all the claims that are stated by the reading passage are not convincing.
First, the author mentions that there is no preserved body of a bee returned back to two hundred million years ago, which means no bees existed during that time. On the other hand, the professor opposes this and brings up that the absence of a bee's fossil does not mean that there were no bees 200 million years ago. The lecturer explains that the bee's body could be preserved by using a specific sticky liquid formed by rasen trees. The speaker adds that these trees were rare 200 million years ago, but they started to be common latter. According to the lecture, the bees could be existed but could not be preserved because of the lack of raisen trees.
Second, the writer mentions that there were no flowering plants two hundred million years ago, and bees are usually depending on flowers to get their food and nectar. Thus, without flowering plants, bees could not exist. On the contrary, the professor encounters this and cites that bees a long time ago could feed on nonflowering plants, such as ferns or pine trees. The lecturer posits that after the appearance of flowering plants, bees might adapt to feed on them and has become a stable food for bees ever since.
Third, the reading says that the fossilized structures lack caps, which are common features in the modern bee nests. Conversely, the professor contradicts this and contends that the modern bee nests have a particular waterproof substance with a distinctive chemical structure to protect nests. The lecturer adds that by examining the fossilized nests, they found that they have the same chemical waterproof material, so these structures might be bee nests.
The material discusses if the
nest
that has
been found
in Arizona could resemble bees'
nests
. While the reading casts doubts that these
structures
were created
by bees, the listening challenges this and points out that it is possible that these
old
fossilized
structures
were bees'
nests
, and all the claims that
are stated
by the reading passage are not convincing.
First
, the author mentions that there is no preserved body of a bee
returned back
to two hundred
million
years ago, which means no bees existed during that time.
On the other hand
, the professor opposes this and brings up that the absence of a bee's fossil does not mean that there were no bees 200
million
years ago. The lecturer
explains
that the bee's body could
be preserved
by using a specific sticky liquid formed by
rasen
trees. The speaker
adds
that these trees were rare 200
million
years ago,
but
they
started
to be common latter. According to the lecture, the bees could
be existed
but
could not
be preserved
because
of the lack of
raisen
trees.
Second, the writer mentions that there were no flowering
plants
two hundred
million
years ago, and bees are
usually
depending on flowers to
get
their food and nectar.
Thus
, without flowering
plants
, bees could not exist.
On the contrary
, the professor encounters this and cites that bees a long time ago could feed on nonflowering
plants
, such as ferns or pine trees. The lecturer posits that after the appearance of flowering
plants
, bees might adapt to feed on them and has become a stable food for bees ever since.
Third, the reading says that the fossilized
structures
lack caps, which are common features in the modern bee
nests
.
Conversely
, the professor contradicts this and contends that the modern bee
nests
have a particular waterproof substance with a distinctive chemical
structure
to protect
nests
. The lecturer
adds
that by examining the fossilized
nests
, they found that they have the same chemical waterproof material,
so
these
structures
might be bee
nests
.