Foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera) were trained individually to choose between 2 identical targets set close together on a large table in a heterogeneous surround. Discrimination was facilitated by the introduction of a small object that was nearer to 1 target than the other. It was also facilitated by the introduction of a longer object or a curved shield that was not differentially placed with respect to the targets but designed to encourage a fixed orientation to them. results support a distinction between place learning and position learning in honeybees. When a honeybee is trained to choose between two targets that differ in some integral property, such as color, the locations of the targets must be interchanged to demonstrate discrimination of color apart from location. Discrimination of location, which may be evident in a preference displayed at the outset of training or established by differential reinforcement (Couvillon, Klosterhalfen, & Bitterman, 1983; Klosterhalfen, Fischer, & Bitterman, 1978), is interesting because location is not an integral property of a target but may be given in relation either to its surround (place learning) or to the orientation of the animal (position learning). Place and position learning were first clearly distinguished in some early experiments with rats (Blodgett & McCutchan, 1947; Tolman, Ritchie, & Kalish, 1946). Trained on an elevated T maze whose situation in a visually heterogeneous environment is changed from trial to trial, rats can learn readily to go always to a fixed place, whether a left or a right turn at the choice point is required to take them there on any given trial. They also can learn—more readily in a homogeneous environment than in a heterogeneous one (Restle, 1957)—to turn always to the left or always to the right at the choice point, although the same turn takes them to different places on different trials. Learning always to turn left or right at a choice point has traditionally been characterized as response learning rather than position learning on the assumption that the motor system is uniquely involved. That assumption is clearly expressed by Leonard and McNaughton (1990) in a recent essay on the neurobiology of spatial representation in rats: The response strategy, they wrote, employs a specific sequence of motor acts, largely independently of the distribution of sensory cues, to attain a goal of navigation (p. 375). Our own preference is for the more neutral term, position learning, because persuasive evidence for the motor interpretation is