Gould himself references a 1995 New York Times article about the discovery of a 220 million year old fossilized beehive. So that's roughly 100 million years earlier than flowering plants.

I can't quote Gould, but I found a quick and easy source for you online that agrees.

Quote:

---

The discovery of 100 fossilized nests in Arizona's Petrified Forest hints that one extremely social insect may have been building hives as early as 220 million b.c.-Apoidea: the bee.

---

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/2/2143/1.html

Therefore I would say your information is simply incorrect or highly misleading. Probably you read this on an evolutionist website, which frequently get facts wrong, or delibrately warp them to mislead poeple.

There may be compelling arguments for evolution, but this is certainly a compelling argument against it.

Quote:

---

First of all its diffcult to be certain about the origins of bees, as the fossil record is fragmentary.

---

This may be true, but its a slippery slope for you. Who's to say then that you can use fossils to construct an evolutionary tree? I think this just agrees with my assertion that there is no 'geologic column' and animals probably lived LONG before and after the certain dates we slap on fossils.