[5] Bombus suckleyi is recognized as a valid species in the United States under the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS).

This subgenus differs morphologically from other Bombus subgenera primarily because its members do not have corbicula (pollen-carrying baskets) on the tibia of their hind legs.

Its life cycle is directly linked to a host species for survival because they have lost the ability to collect sufficient pollen and nectar to produce colonies.

[8]: 77  All individual Suckley's bumble bees are able to reproduce and there is no sterile worker caste, differing from eusocial Bombus species.

Meadows often exist within patchy meadow-complexes and bumble bees are able to exploit scattered resources because they are mobile compared to other insects.

[8]: 193  The quantity and quality of floral resources within Suckley's range varies greatly, and floral-rich meadows are often interspersed within forests or exist in field margins and hedgerows within a matrix of flower-poor agricultural land.

Suckley's bumble bee and its host species rely on flowers through the entire growing season to produce large colonies.

[7] The temporal distribution of flowering plants is important, as the amount of nectar and pollen during the early spring and late summer impact the growth of the host colony and for the production of Suckley's bumble bee individuals.

Bumble bees are generally known to hibernate close to the ground surface or down an inch or two in loose soil, or under leaf litter or other debris, in sites that are undisturbed and have adequate organic material to provide shelter.

[7] In Canada, the species was historically spread across the southern portions of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan with a disjunct population in Newfoundland.

Suckley's bumble bee has experienced an overall decline of 77%, losing more than 50% of its range and with relative abundance records at less than 10% of historic observations.

[1] Other possible reasons for its declines include pesticides, loss of habitat, competition from introduced species of bees, climate change, and the parasite Nosema bombi.

[23] A subsequent legal challenge of the CESA's definition of a fish as "a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals"[23] was eventually overruled, because the explicit intent was for all invertebrates (therefore including insects) to be qualified for protection under this legal definition.