Farshineh [6] compared A.
mellifera meda populations of Iran (Orumieh, Tbriz, and
Tehran) with populations in different zones of Turkey (Kiseher
and Beypazari) and A. mellifera carnica of northern Turkey.
They found that honeybee populations in Iran were smaller
than honeybee populations in Turkey. Amssalu [2] evaluated
Ethiopian honeybees at five locations (northeast, west, east,
southeast, and central Ethiopia). Results showed that A.
mellifera woyi-gambell and A. m. monticola were cited in the
southeast and the North Mountains in dry and semi-humid
climates, respectively.
Our research indicated that geometric morphometric was more
precise than standard morphometric; because Cross-validation
tests based on CVA of shape variables fore wings (geometric
morphometric method) correctly classified 77.5% of the
colonies whereas Cross-validation tests based on CVA of ten
morphological characteristics (standard morphometric)
classified 70.7% of the colonies. Also, cluster analysis
separated almost two populations Birjand and Shiraz in
geometric morphometric method whereas cluster analysis of
standard morphometric separated only Songhor population
completely. Charistos [3] confirmed that the use of geometric
morphometrics was already more known than mtDNA studies;
He mentioned that Greek honey bee populations are not
classified clearly using only morphometrics analysis referred
to in Ruttner [15]. Great hybridization exists due to beekeeping
practices (commercial breeding and migratory beekeeping).
Furthermore, Francoy et al. (2008) discriminated two races of
European and Africanized honeybees well; they confirmed that
geometric morphometric method was faster and easier than
standard morphometric.
Tofilski [18] demonstrated that geometric morphometrics
(84.9%) yielded better discrimination of three honeybee
subspecies (A. m. mellifera, A. m. carnica and A. m.