Wikipedia

Eusociality

(Redirected fromWorker caste)

Eusociality(Greekεὖeu"good" andsocial) is the highest level of organization ofsociality.It is defined by the following characteristics: cooperativebroodcare (including care ofoffspringfrom other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony ofadults,and a division of labor intoreproductiveand non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society, sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform behaviors characteristic of individuals in another caste. Eusocial colonies can be viewed assuperorganisms.

Co-operative brood rearing, seen here inhoneybees,is a condition of eusociality.

Eusociality has evolved among theinsects,crustaceans,trematodaandmammals.It is most widespread in theHymenoptera(ants,bees,andwasps) and in Blattodea (termites). A colony has caste differences: queens andreproductivemalestake the roles of the sole reproducers, while soldiers and workers work together to create and maintain a living situation favorable for the brood. Queens produce multiple queen pheromones to create and maintain the eusocial state in their colonies; they may also eat eggs laid by other females or exert dominance by fighting. There are two eusocialrodents:thenaked mole-ratand theDamaraland mole-rat.Someshrimps,such asSynalpheus regalis,are eusocial.E. O. Wilsonand others have claimed thathumanshave evolved a weak form of eusociality. It has been suggested that the colonial and epiphyticstaghorn fern,too, may make use of a primitively eusocial division of labor.

History

edit
Suzanne Batraintroduced the term "eusocial"[1]after studying nesting inHalictidbees includingHalictus latisignatus,[2]pictured.

The term "eusocial" was introduced in 1966 bySuzanne Batra,who used it to describe nesting behavior inHalictidbees, on a scale of subsocial/solitary, colonial/communal, semisocial, and eusocial, where a colony is started by a single individual.[1][2]Batra observed the cooperative behavior of the bees, males and females alike, as they took responsibility for at least one duty (i.e., burrowing, cell construction,oviposition) within the colony. The cooperativeness was essential as the activity of one labor division greatly influenced the activity of another. Eusocial colonies can be viewed assuperorganisms,with individual castes being analogous to differenttissueorcell typesin amulticellular organism;castes fulfill a specific role that contributes to the functioning and survival of the whole colony, while being incapable of independent survival outside the colony.[3]

In 1969,Charles D. Michener[4]further expanded Batra's classification with his comparative study of social behavior in bees. He observed multiple species of bees (Apoidea) in order to investigate the different levels of animal sociality, all of which are different stages that a colony may pass through. Eusociality, which is the highest level of animal sociality a species can attain, specifically had three characteristics that distinguished it from the other levels:[1]

  1. Egg-layers and worker-like individuals among adult females (division of labor)
  2. The overlap of generations (mother and adult offspring)
  3. Cooperative work on the cells of the bees' honeycomb
Weaver ants,here collaborating to pull nest leaves together, can be considered eusocial, as they have a permanent division of labor.

E. O. Wilsonextended the terminology to include other social insects, such as ants, wasps, and termites. Originally, it was defined to include organisms (only invertebrates) that had the following three features:[1][5][6][7]

  1. Reproductive division of labor (with or without sterile castes)
  2. Overlapping generations
  3. Cooperative care of young

Eusociality was then discovered in a group ofchordates,the mole-rats. Further research distinguished another possibly important criterion for eusociality, "the point of no return". This is characterized by having individuals fixed into one behavioral group, usually before reproductive maturity. This prevents them from transitioning between behavioral groups, and creates a society with individuals truly dependent on each other for survival and reproductive success. For many insects, this irreversibility has changed the anatomy of the worker caste, which is sterile and provides support for the reproductive caste.[1][7]

Diversity

edit

Most eusocial societies exist inarthropods,while a few are found inmammals.Somefernsmay exhibit a primitive form of eusocial behavior.[8][9]

In insects

edit
See also:Sexual selection in social insectsandIdentity in social insects

Eusociality has evolved multiple times in different insect orders, including hymenopterans,[10]termites,[11]thrips,[12]aphids,[12]and beetles.[13]

In hymenoptera

edit
SwarmingIridomyrmex purpureusants. The young queens are black, winged, and much larger than the wingless workers.

The orderHymenopteracontains the largest group of eusocial insects, includingants,bees,andwasps—divided into castes: reproductivequeens,drones,more or lesssterileworkers, and sometimes also soldiers that perform specialized tasks.[14]In the well-studied social waspPolistes versicolor,[15]dominant females perform tasks such as building new cells and ovipositing, while subordinate females tend to perform tasks like feeding the larvae and foraging. The task differentiation between castes can be seen in the fact that subordinates complete 81.4% of the total foraging activity, while dominants only complete 18.6% of the total foraging.[16]Eusocial species with a sterile caste are sometimes called hypersocial.[17]

While only a moderate percentage of species in bees (familiesApidaeandHalictidae) and wasps (CrabronidaeandVespidae) are eusocial, nearly all species of ants (Formicidae) are eusocial.[18]Some major lineages of wasps are mostly or entirely eusocial, including the subfamiliesPolistinaeandVespinae.The corbiculate bees (subfamily Apinae of familyApidae) contain four tribes of varying degrees of sociality: the highly eusocialApini(honey bees) andMeliponini(stingless bees), primitively eusocialBombini(bumble bees), and the mostly solitary or weakly socialEuglossini(orchid bees).[19]Eusociality in these families is sometimes managed by a set ofpheromonesthat alter the behavior of specific castes in the colony. These pheromones may act across different species, as observed inApis andreniformis(black dwarf honey bee), where worker bees responded to queen pheromone from the relatedApis florea(red dwarf honey bee).[20]Pheromones are sometimes used in these castes to assist with foraging. Workers of the Australian stingless beeTetragonula carbonaria,for instance, mark food sources with a pheromone, helping their nest mates to find the food.[21]

Myrmecocystushoneypot ants, showing the repletes or plerergates, their abdomens swollen to store honey (top), with ordinary workers (bottom)

Reproductive specialization generally involves the production of sterile members of the species, which carry out specialized tasks to care for the reproductive members. Individuals may have behavior and morphology modified for group defense, includingself-sacrificing behavior.For example, members of the sterile caste of thehoneypot antssuch asMyrmecocystusfill their abdomens with liquid food until they become immobile and hang from the ceilings of the underground nests, acting as food storage for the rest of the colony.[22]Not all social insects have distinct morphological differences between castes. For example, in the Neotropical social waspSynoeca surinama,caste ranks are determined by social displays in the developing brood.[23]These castes are sometimes further specialized in their behavior based on age, as inScaptotrigona posticaworkers. Between approximately 0–40 days old, the workers perform tasks within the nest such as provisioning cell broods, colony cleaning, and nectar reception and dehydration. Once older than 40 days,S. posticaworkers move outside the nest for colony defense and foraging.[24]

InLasioglossum aeneiventre,a halictid bee from Central America, nests may be headed by more than one female; such nests have more cells, and the number of active cells per female is correlated with the number of females in the nest, implying that having more females leads to more efficient building and provisioning of cells.[25]In similar species with only one queen, such asLasioglossum malachurumin Europe, the degree of eusociality depends on the clime in which the species is found.[26]

In termites

edit
Termiteslive in large nests, with queen, king, soldier (red heads), and worker (pale heads) castes.

Termites(orderBlattodea,infraorderIsoptera) make up another large portion of highly advanced eusocial animals. The colony is differentiated into various castes: the queen and king are the sole reproducing individuals; workers forage and maintain food and resources;[27]and soldiers defend the colony against ant attacks. The latter two castes, which are sterile and perform highly specialized, complex social behaviors, are derived from different stages ofpluripotentlarvae produced by the reproductive caste.[11]Some soldiers have jaws so enlarged (specialized for defense and attack) that they are unable to feed themselves and must be fed by workers.[28]

In beetles

edit

Austroplatypus incompertusis a species ofambrosia beetlenative to Australia, and is the first beetle (orderColeoptera) to be recognized as eusocial.[29][13]This species forms colonies in which a single female is fertilized, and is protected by many unfertilized females, which serve as workers excavating tunnels in trees. This species has cooperative brood care, in which individuals care for juveniles that are not their own.[13]

In gall-inducing insects

edit
Kladothrips rugosa,agall-formingthrips(larva on left, adult on right) with galls (centre) onAcacialeaves. Its soldier caste defends the colony in its gall fortress.

Somegall-inducing insects,including thegall-formingaphid,Pemphigus spyrothecae(orderHemiptera), andthripssuch asKladothrips(orderThysanoptera), are described as eusocial.[12][30]These species have very high relatedness among individuals due to theirasexual reproduction(sterile soldier castes being clones produced byparthenogenesis), but the gall-inhabiting behavior gives these species a defensible resource. They produce soldier castes for fortress defense and protection of the colony against predators,kleptoparasites,and competitors. In these groups, eusociality is produced by both high relatedness and by living in a restricted, shared area.[31][32]

In crustaceans

edit

Eusociality has evolved in three different lineages in the colonialcrustaceangenusSyn Alpha eus.S. regalis,S. microneptunus,S. filidigitus,S. elizabethae,S. chacei,S. riosi,S. duffyi,andS. cayoneptunusare the eight recorded species of parasitic shrimp that rely on fortress defense and live in groups of closely related individuals in tropical reefs and sponges.[33]They live eusocially with a single breeding female, and a large number of male defenders armed with enlarged snapping claws. There is a single shared living space for the colony members, and the non-breeding members act to defend it.[34]

The fortress defense hypothesis additionally points out that because sponges provide both food and shelter, there is an aggregation of relatives (because the shrimp do not have to disperse to find food), and much competition for those nesting sites. Being the target of attack promotes a good defense system (soldier caste); soldiers promote the fitness of the whole nest by ensuring safety and reproduction of the queen.[35]

Eusociality offers a competitive advantage in shrimp populations. Eusocial species are more abundant, occupy more of the habitat, and use more of the available resources than non-eusocial species.[36][37][38]

In trematodes

edit

Thetrematodesare a class of parasitic flatworm, also known as flukes. One species,Haplorchis pumilio,has evolved eusociality involving a colony creating a class of sterile soldiers.[39]One fluke invades a host and establishes a colony of dozens to thousands of clones that work together to take it over. Since rival trematode species can invade and replace the colony, it is protected by a specialized caste of sterile soldier trematodes.[40]Soldiers are smaller, more mobile, and develop along a different pathway than sexually mature reproductives. One difference is that a soldier's mouthparts (pharynx) is five times as big as those of the reproductives. They make up nearly a quarter of the volume of the soldier. These soldiers do not have a germinal mass, never metamorphose to be reproductive, and are, therefore, obligately sterile.[40]Soldiers are readily distinguished from the immature and mature reproductive worms. Soldiers are more aggressive than reproductives, attacking heterospecific trematodes that infect their hostin vitro.H. pumiliosoldiers do not attack conspecifics from other colonies. The soldiers are not evenly distributed throughout the host body. They are found in the highest numbers in the basal visceral mass, where competing trematodes tend to multiply during the early phase of infection. This strategic positioning allows them to effectively defend against invaders, similar to how soldier distribution patterns are seen in other animals with defensive castes. They "appear to be an obligately sterile physical caste, akin to that of the most advanced social insects".[40]

In nonhuman mammals

edit
Model ofnaked mole-ratburrow with soldiers, workers, and queen, a social structure similar to the castes of the eusocial insects

Among mammals, two species in the rodent groupPhiomorphaare eusocial, thenaked mole-rat(Heterocephalus glaber) and theDamaraland mole-rat(Fukomys damarensis), both of which are highlyinbred.[41]Usually living in harsh or limiting environments, these mole-rats aid in raising siblings and relatives born to a single reproductive queen. However, this classification is controversial owing to disputed definitions of 'eusociality'. Toavoid inbreeding,mole rats sometimes outbreed and establish new colonies when resources are sufficient.[42]Most of the individuals cooperatively care for the brood of a single reproductive female (the queen) to which they are most likely related. Thus, it is uncertain whether mole rats are truly eusocial, since their social behavior depends largely on their resources and environment.[43]

Some mammals in theCarnivoraandPrimateshave eusocial tendencies, especiallymeerkats(Suricata suricatta) anddwarf mongooses(Helogale parvula). These show cooperative breeding and marked reproductive skews. In the dwarf mongoose, the breeding pair receives food priority and protection from subordinates and rarely has to defend against predators.[44]

In humans

edit
Further information:Group selection

Scientists have debated whether humans areprosocialor eusocial.[45]Edward O. Wilsoncalled humans eusocial apes, arguing for similarities to ants, and observing that earlyhomininscooperated to rear their children while other members of the same group hunted and foraged.[46]Wilson and others argued that through cooperation and teamwork, ants and humans form superorganisms.[47][48][49]Wilson's claims were vigorously rejected by critics ofgroup selectiontheory, which grounded Wilson's argument,[46][50][51]and because humanreproductive laboris not divided between castes.[50]

Though controversial,[52]it has been suggested that male homosexuality[53]and female menopause[54]could have evolved throughkin selection.[55][56]This would mean that humans sometimes exhibit a type ofalloparentalbehavior known as "helpers at the nest",with juveniles and sexually mature adolescents helping their parents raise subsequent broods, as in some birds,[57]some non-eusocial bees,andmeerkats.[58]These species are not eusocial: they do not have castes, and helpers reproduce on their own if given the opportunity.[59][48][60]

In plants

edit
The staghorn fernPlatycerium bifurcatummay display a simple form of eusociality.

One plant, theepiphyticstaghorn fern,Platycerium bifurcatum(Polypodiaceae), may exhibit a primitive form of eusocial behavior amongst clones. The evidence for this is that individuals live in colonies, where they are structured in different ways, withfrondsof differing size and shape, to collect and store water and nutrients for the colony to use. At the top of a colony, there are both pleated fan-shaped "nest" fronds that collect and hold water, and gutter-shaped "strap" fronds that channel water: no solitaryPlatyceriumspecies has both types. At the bottom of a colony, there are "nest" fronds that clasp the trunk of the tree supporting the fern, and drooping photosynthetic fronds. These are argued to be adapted to support the colony structurally, i.e. that the individuals in the colony are to some degree specialized for tasks, adivision of labor.[8][9][61]

Evolution

edit
Main article:Evolution of eusociality

Phylogenetic distribution

edit
Further information:Sociality

Eusociality is a rare but widespread phenomenon in species in at least seven orders in theanimal kingdom,as shown in thephylogenetic tree(non-eusocial groups not shown). All species of termites are eusocial, and it is believed that they were the first eusocial animals to evolve, sometime in the upperJurassicperiod (~150 million years ago).[62]The other orders shown contain both eusocial and non-eusocial species, including many lineages where eusociality is inferred to be the ancestral state. Thus the number of independent evolutions of eusociality (clades) is not known. The major eusocial groups are shown inboldfacein the phylogenetic tree.

Eukaryotes

Paradox

edit

Prior to thegene-centered view of evolution,eusociality was seen as paradoxical: if adaptive evolution unfolds by differential reproduction of individual organisms, the evolution of individuals incapable of passing on their genes presents a challenge. InOn the Origin of Species,Darwinreferred to the existence of sterile castes as the "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory".[63]Darwin anticipated that a possible resolution to the paradox might lie in the close family relationship, whichW.D. Hamiltonquantified a century later with his 1964inclusive fitnesstheory. After the gene-centered view of evolution was developed in the mid-1970s, non-reproductive individuals were seen as an extended phenotype of the genes, which are the primary beneficiaries of natural selection.[64]

Inclusive fitness and haplodiploidy

edit

Argument that haplodiploidy favors eusociality

edit
Further information:Inclusive fitnessandHaplodiploidy
Honey bees arehaplodiploid,withhaploidmales anddiploidfemales. It has been suggested that this organisation favours eusociality, but haplodiploidy is neither necessary nor sufficient for eusociality to emerge.

According toinclusive fitnesstheory, organisms can gain fitness by increasing the reproductive output of other individuals that share their genes, especially their close relatives. Natural selection favors individuals to help their relatives when the cost of helping is less than the benefit gained by their relative multiplied by the fraction of genes that they share, i.e. whenCost < relatedness * Benefit.W. D. Hamilton suggested in 1964 that eusociality could evolve more easily amonghaplodiploidspecies such as Hymenoptera, because of their unusual relatedness structure.[65][66][67]

In haplodiploid species, females develop from fertilized eggs and males develop from unfertilized eggs. Because a male is haploid, his daughters share 100% of his genes and 50% of their mother's. Therefore, they share 75% of their genes with each other. This mechanism of sex determination gives rise to what W. D. Hamilton first termed "supersisters", more closely related to their sisters than they would be to their own offspring.[67]Even though workers often do not reproduce, they can pass on more of their genes by helping to raise their sisters than by having their own offspring (each of which would only have 50% of their genes). This unusual situation, where females may have greater fitness when they help rear sisters rather than producing offspring, is often invoked to explain the multiple independent evolutions of eusociality (at least nine separate times) within the Hymenoptera.[68]

Argument that haplodiploidy does not favor eusociality

edit

Against the supposed benefits of haplodiploidy for eusociality,Robert Triversnotes that while females share 75% of genes with their sisters in haplodiploid populations, they only share 25% of their genes with their brothers.[69]Accordingly, the average relatedness of an individual to their sibling is 50%. Therefore, helping behavior is only advantageous if it is biased to helping sisters, which would drive the population to a 1:3 sex ratio of males to females. At this ratio, males, as the rarer sex, increase in reproductive value, reducing the benefit of female-biased investment.[70]

Further, not all eusocial species are haplodiploid: termites, some snapping shrimps, and mole rats are not. Conversely, many non-eusocial bees are haplodiploid, and among eusocial species many queens mate with multiple males, resulting in a hive of half-sisters that share only 25% of their genes. The association between haplodiploidy and eusociality is below statistical significance.[71]Haplodiploidy is thus neither necessary nor sufficient for eusociality to emerge.[72]Relatedness does still play a part, as monogamy (queens mating singly) is the ancestral state for all eusocial species so far investigated.[73]If kin selection is an important force driving the evolution of eusociality, monogamy should be the ancestral state, because it maximizes the relatedness of colony members.[73]

Evolutionary ecology

edit

Increased parasitism and predation rates are the primary ecological drivers of social organization. Group living affords colony members defense against enemies, specifically predators, parasites, and competitors, and allows them to gain advantage from superior foraging methods.[7]The importance of ecology in the evolution of eusociality is supported by evidence such as experimentally induced reproductive division of labor, for example when normally solitary queens are forced together.[74]Conversely, femaleDamaraland mole-ratsundergo hormonal changes that promote dispersal after periods of high rainfall.[75]

Climate too appears to be a selective agent driving social complexity; across bee lineages and Hymenoptera in general, higher forms of sociality are more likely to occur in tropical than temperate environments.[76]Similarly, social transitions withinhalictid bees,where eusociality has been gained and lost multiple times, are correlated with periods of climatic warming. Social behavior in facultative social bees is often reliably predicted by ecological conditions, and switches in behavioral type have been experimentally induced by translocating offspring of solitary or social populations to warm and cool climates. InH. rubicundus,females produce a single brood in cooler regions and two or more broods in warmer regions, so the former populations are solitary while the latter are social.[77]In another species of sweat bees,L. calceatum,social phenotype has been predicted by altitude and micro-habitat composition, with social nests found in warmer, sunnier sites, and solitary nests found in adjacent, cooler, shaded locations. Facultatively social bee species, however, which comprise the majority of social bee diversity, have their lowest diversity in the tropics, being largely limited to temperate regions.[78]

Multilevel selection

edit
Further information:Group selection

Once pre-adaptations such as group formation, nest building, high cost of dispersal, and morphological variation are present,between-group competitionhas been suggested as a driver of the transition to advanced eusociality. M. A. Nowak, C. E. Tarnita, andE. O. Wilsonproposed in 2010 that since eusociality produces an extremely altruistic society, eusocial groups should out-reproduce their less cooperative competitors, eventually eliminating all non-eusocial groups from a species.[79]Multilevel selection has been heavily criticized for its conflict with thekin selectiontheory.[80]

Reversal to solitarity

edit

A reversal to solitarity is an evolutionary phenomenon in which descendants of a eusocial group evolve solitary behavior once again. Bees have been model organisms for the study of reversal to solitarity, because of the diversity of their social systems. Each of the four origins of eusociality in bees was followed by at least one reversal to solitarity, giving a total of at least nine reversals.[4][5]In a few species, solitary and eusocial colonies appear simultaneously in the same population, and different populations of the same species may be fully solitary or eusocial.[77]This suggests that eusociality is costly to maintain, and can only persist when ecological variables favor it. Disadvantages of eusociality include the cost of investing in non-reproductive offspring, and an increased risk of disease.[81]

All reversals to solitarity have occurred among primitively eusocial groups; none have followed the emergence of advanced eusociality. The "point of no return" hypothesis posits that the morphological differentiation of reproductive and non-reproductive castes prevents highly eusocial species such as the honeybee from reverting to the solitary state.[20]

Physiology and development

edit

Pheromones

edit

Pheromonesplay an important role in the physiological mechanisms of eusociality. Enzymes involved in the production and perception of pheromones were important for the emergence of eusociality within both termites and hymenopterans.[82]The best-studied queen pheromone system in social insects is that of the honey beeApis mellifera.Queen mandibular glands produce a mixture of five compounds, threealiphaticand twoaromatic,which control workers.[83]Mandibular gland extracts inhibit workers from constructing queen cells, which can delay the hormonally based behavioral development of workers and suppress their ovarian development.[84][83]Both behavioral effects mediated by the nervous system often leading to recognition of queens (releaser) and physiological effects on the reproductive and endocrine system (primer) are attributed to the same pheromones. These pheromones volatilize or are deactivated within thirty minutes, allowing workers to respond rapidly to the loss of their queen.[84]

The levels of two of the aliphatic compounds increase rapidly in virgin queens within the first week afteremergence from the pupa,consistent with their roles as sex attractants during the mating flight.[83]Once a queen is mated and begins laying eggs, she starts producing the full blend of compounds.[83]In several ant species, reproductive activity is associated with pheromone production by queens.[83]Mated egg-laying queens are attractive to workers, whereas young winged virgin queens elicit little or no response.[83]

Physiology of eusociality infire ants:three queen pheromones help to create and maintain the eusocial state of the colony. Loss of a primer pheromone triggers the development of replacement queens (dashed lines).[83][84]

Among ants, the queen pheromone system of the fire antSolenopsis invictaincludes both releaser and primer pheromones. A queen recognition (releaser) pheromone is stored in the poison sac along with three other compounds. These compounds elicit a behavioral response from workers. Several primer effects have also been demonstrated. Pheromones initiate reproductive development in new winged females, called female sexuals.[83]These chemicals inhibit workers from rearing male and female sexuals, suppress egg production in other queens of multiple queen colonies, and cause workers to execute excess queens.[83][84]These pheromones maintain the eusocial phenotype, with one queen supported by sterile workers and sexually active males (drones). In queenless colonies, the lack of queen pheromones causes winged females to quickly shed their wings, develop ovaries and lay eggs. These virgin replacement queens assume the role of the queen and start to produce queen pheromones.[83]Similarly, queen weaver antsOecophylla longinodahaveexocrineglands that produce pheromones which prevent workers from laying reproductive eggs.[84]

Similar mechanisms exist in the eusocial waspVespula vulgaris.For a queen to dominate all the workers, usually numbering more than 3000 in a colony, she signals her dominance with pheromones. The workers regularly lick the queen while feeding her, and the air-bornepheromonefrom the queen's body alerts those workers of her dominance.[85]

The mode of action of inhibitory pheromones which prevent the development of eggs in workers has been demonstrated in the bumble beeBombus terrestris.[84]The pheromones suppress activity of the endocrine gland, thecorpus allatum,stopping it from secretingjuvenile hormone.[86]With low juvenile hormone, eggs do not mature. Similar inhibitory effects of lowering juvenile hormone were seen in halictine bees and polistine wasps, but not in honey bees.[84]

Other mechanisms

edit

A variety of other mechanisms give queens of different species of social insects a measure of reproductive control over their nest mates. In manyPolisteswasps, monogamy is established soon after colony formation by physical dominance interactions among foundresses of the colony including biting, chasing, and food soliciting. Such interactions create a dominance hierarchy headed by larger, older individuals with the greatest ovarian development. The rank of subordinates is correlated with the degree of ovarian development.[84]Workers do notovipositwhen queens are present, for a variety of reasons: colonies tend to be small enough that queens can effectively dominate workers; queens practice selectiveoophagy;the flow of nutrients favors queen over workers; and queens rapidly lay eggs in new or vacated cells.[84]

In primitively eusocial bees (where castes are morphologically similar and colonies are small and short-lived), queens frequently nudge their nest mates and then burrow back down into the nest. This draws workers into the lower part of the nest where they may respond to stimuli for cell construction and maintenance.[84]Being nudged by the queen may help to inhibit ovarian development; in addition, the queen eats any eggs laid by workers.[84]Furthermore, temporally discrete production of workers andgynes(actual or potential queens) can cause size dimorphisms between different castes, as size is strongly influenced by the season during which the individual is reared. In many wasps, worker caste is determined by a temporal pattern in which workers precede non-workers of the same generation.[87]In some cases, for example in bumblebees, queen control weakens late in the season, and the ovaries of workers develop.[84]The queen attempts to maintain her dominance by aggressive behavior and by eating worker-laid eggs; her aggression is often directed towards the worker with the greatest ovarian development.[84]

In highly eusocial wasps (where castes are morphologically dissimilar), both the quantity and quality of food are important for caste differentiation.[84]Recent studies in wasps suggest that differential larval nourishment may be the environmental trigger for larval divergence into workers or gynes.[87]All honey bee larvae are initially fed withroyal jelly,which is secreted by workers, but normally they are switched over to a diet of pollen and honey as they mature; if their diet is exclusively royal jelly, they grow larger than normal and differentiate into queens. This jelly contains a specific protein, royalactin, which increases body size, promotes ovary development, and shortens the developmental time period.[88]The differential expression inPolistesof larval genes and proteins (also differentially expressed during queen versus caste development in honey bees) indicates that regulatory mechanisms may operate very early in development.[87]

edit

Stephen Baxter's 2003 science fiction novelCoalescentimagines a human eusocial organisation founded inancient Rome,in which most individuals are subject to reproductive repression.[89] Harold Fromm, reviewingGroping for Groupsby E. O. Wilson and others inThe Hudson Review,asks whether Wilson's stated "wish" for humans to bring about "a permanent paradise for human beings" would mean "to be group-selected in factories in the style ofHuxley's [1932 novel]Brave New World.[90]

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^abcdeCrespi, Bernard J.;Yanega, Douglas (1995). "The Definition of Eusociality".Behavioral Ecology.6:109–115.doi:10.1093/beheco/6.1.109.
  2. ^abBatra, Suzanne W. T.(1 September 1966)."Nests and Social Behavior of Halictine bees of India (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)".The Indian Journal of Entomology.28(3): 375–393.
  3. ^Opachaloemphan, Comzit; Yan, Hua; Leibholz, Alexandra; Desplan, Claude; Reinberg, Danny (2018-11-23)."Recent Advances in Behavioral (Epi)Genetics in Eusocial Insects".Annual Review of Genetics.52(1): 489–510.doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-120116-024456.ISSN0066-4197.PMC6445553.PMID30208294.
  4. ^abMichener, Charles D. (1969). "Comparative Social Behavior of Bees".Annual Review of Entomology.14:299–342.doi:10.1146/annurev.en.14.010169.001503.
  5. ^abGadagkar, Raghavendra (1993). "And now... eusocial thrips!".Current Science.64(4): 215–216.
  6. ^Wilson, Edward O.(1971). "3 The Social Wasps; 4 The Ants; 6 The Termites".The Insect Societies.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press.ISBN9780674454903.
  7. ^abcWilson, Edward O.;Hölldobler, Bert (20 September 2005)."Eusociality: Origin and Consequences".PNAS.102(38): 13367–13371.Bibcode:2005PNAS..10213367W.doi:10.1073/pnas.0505858102.PMC1224642.PMID16157878.
  8. ^abPreston, Elizabeth (2 July 2021)."These Plants Act Like Bees in a Hive".New York Times.Retrieved7 July2021.
  9. ^abBurns, K. C.; Hutton, Ian; Shepherd, Lara (14 May 2021)."Primitive eusociality in a land plant?".Ecology.102(9): e03373.Bibcode:2021Ecol..102E3373B.doi:10.1002/ecy.3373.ISSN0012-9658.PMID33988245.S2CID234496454.Retrieved7 July2021.
  10. ^Danforth, Bryan N. (December 26, 2001)."Evolution of sociality in a primitively eusocial lineage of bees".PNAS.99(1): 286–290.doi:10.1073/pnas.012387999.PMC117553.PMID11782550.
  11. ^abThorne, B. L. (1997)."Evolution of eusociality in termites".Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics.28(11): 27–54.doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.27.PMC349550.
  12. ^abcStern, D. L. (1994). "A phylogenetic analysis of soldier evolution in the aphid family Hormaphididae".Proceedings of the Royal Society.256(1346): 203–209.Bibcode:1994RSPSB.256..203S.doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0071.PMID8029243.S2CID14607482.
  13. ^abcKent, D. S.; Simpson, J. A. (1992). "Eusociality in the beetleAustroplatypus incompertus(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) ".Naturwissenschaften.79(2): 86–87.Bibcode:1992NW.....79...86K.doi:10.1007/BF01131810.S2CID35534268.
  14. ^Hölldobler, B. (1990). "8 Caste and Division of Labor".The Ants.Cambridge, Massachusetts:Belknap Press.pp. 298–318.
  15. ^Cervo, Rita (2006). "Polistes wasps and their social parasites: an overview".Annales Zoologici Fennici.43(5/6): 531–549.JSTOR23736760.
  16. ^Zara, Fernando; Balestieri, Jose (2000). "Behavioural Catalogue of Polistes versicolor Olivier (Vespidae: Polistinae) Post-emergent Colonies".Naturalia.25:301–319.
  17. ^Richards, Miriam H. (2019). "Social trait definitions influence evolutionary inferences: a phylogenetic approach to improving social terminology for bees".Current Opinion in Insect Science.34:97–104.Bibcode:2019COIS...34...97R.doi:10.1016/j.cois.2019.04.006.PMID31247426.S2CID151303496.
  18. ^Peters, Ralph S.; Krogmann, Lars; Mayer, Christoph; Donath, Alexander; Gunkel, Simon; et al. (April 2017)."Evolutionary History of the Hymenoptera".Current Biology.27(7): 1013–1018.Bibcode:2017CBio...27.1013P.doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.027.hdl:2434/801122.PMID28343967.
  19. ^Cardinal, Sophie; Danforth, Bryan N. (2011)."The antiquity and evolutionary history of social behavior in bees".PLOS ONE.6(6): e21086.Bibcode:2011PLoSO...621086C.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021086.PMC3113908.PMID21695157.
  20. ^abWongvilas, S.; Deowanish, S.; Lim, J.; Xie, V. R. D.; Griffith, O. W.; Oldroyd, B. P. (2010). "Interspecific and conspecific colony mergers in the dwarf honey beesApis andreniformisandA. florea".Insectes Sociaux.57(3): 251–255.doi:10.1007/s00040-010-0080-7.S2CID8657703.
  21. ^Bartareau, T. (1996). "Foraging Behaviour of Trigona Carbonaria (Hymenoptera: Apidae) at Multiple-Choice Feeding Stations".Australian Journal of Zoology.44(2): 143.doi:10.1071/zo9960143.
  22. ^Conway, John R. (September 1986). "The Biology of Honey Ants".The American Biology Teacher.48(6): 335–343.doi:10.2307/4448321.JSTOR4448321.
  23. ^West-Eberhard, M. J. (1982). "The Nature and Evolution of Swarming In Tropical Social Wasps (Vespidae, Polistinae, Polybini)".Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
  24. ^van Veen, J. W.; Sommeijer, M. J.; Meeuwsen, F. (November 1997). "Behaviour of drones in Melipona (Apidae, Meliponinae)".Insectes Sociaux.44(4): 435–447.doi:10.1007/s000400050063.S2CID36563930.
  25. ^Wcislo, W. T.; Wille, A.; Orozco, E. (1993). "Nesting biology of tropical solitary and social sweat bees, Lasioglossum (Dialictus) figueresi Wcislo and L. (D.) aeneiventre (Friese) (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)".Insectes Sociaux.40:21–40.doi:10.1007/BF01338830.S2CID6867760.
  26. ^Richards, Miriam H. (2000). "Evidence for geographic variation in colony social organization in an obligately social sweat bee, Lasioglossum malachurum Kirby (Hymenoptera; Halictidae)".Canadian Journal of Zoology.78(7): 1259–1266.doi:10.1139/z00-064.
  27. ^Costa-Leonardo AM, Haifig I. (2014).Termite Communication During Different Behavioral Activities.In: Biocommunication of Animals. Dortrecht, Springer, 161–190.
  28. ^Adams, E. S. (1987). "Territory size and population limits in mangrove termites".Journal of Animal Ecology.56(3): 1069–1081.Bibcode:1987JAnEc..56.1069A.doi:10.2307/4967.JSTOR4967.
  29. ^"Science: The Australian beetle that behaves like a bee".New Scientist.9 May 1992.Retrieved2010-10-31.
  30. ^Aoki, S.; Imai, M. (2005). "Factors affecting the proportion of sterile soldiers in growing aphid colonies".Population Ecology.47(2): 127–136.Bibcode:2005PopEc..47..127A.doi:10.1007/s10144-005-0218-z.S2CID2224506.
  31. ^Crespi B. J. (1992). "Eusociality in Australian gall thrips".Nature.359(6397): 724–726.Bibcode:1992Natur.359..724C.doi:10.1038/359724a0.S2CID4242926.
  32. ^Stern, D.; Foster, W. (1996). "The evolution of soldiers in aphids".Biological Reviews.71(1): 27–79.doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1996.tb00741.x.PMID8603120.S2CID8991755.
  33. ^Duffy, J. Emmett; Morrison, Cheryl L.; Rios, Ruben (2000). "Multiple origins of eusociality among sponge-dwelling shrimps (Synalpheus) ".Evolution.54(2): 503–516.doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00053.x.PMID10937227.S2CID1088840.
  34. ^Duffy, J. E. (1998)."On the frequency of eusociality in snapping shrimps (Decapoda: Alpheidae), with description of a second eusocial species".Bulletin of Marine Science.63(2): 387–400.
  35. ^Duffy, J. E. (2003). "The ecology and evolution of eusociality in sponge-dwelling shrimp".Genes, Behaviors and Evolution of Social Insects:217–254.
  36. ^Duffy, J. E.; Macdonald, K. S. (2010)."Kin structure, ecology and the evolution of social organization in shrimp: a comparative analysis".Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.277(1681): 575–584.doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1483.PMC2842683.PMID19889706.
  37. ^Hultgren, K.M.; Duffy, J. E. (2012). "Phylogenetic community ecology and the role of social dominance in sponge-dwelling shrimp".Ecology Letters.15(7): 704–713.Bibcode:2012EcolL..15..704H.doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01788.x.PMID22548770.
  38. ^Macdonald, K.S.; Rios, R.; Duffy, J. E. (2006)."Biodiversity, host specificity, and dominance by eusocial species among sponge-dwelling alpheid shrimp on the Belize Barrier Reef".Diversity and Distributions.12(2): 165–178.Bibcode:2006DivDi..12..165M.doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00213.x.S2CID44096968.
  39. ^Richards, Miriam H. (10 September 2024). "Social evolution and reproductive castes in trematode parasites".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.121(37).doi:10.1073/pnas.2414228121.
  40. ^abcMetz, Daniel C. G.; Hechinger, Ryan F. (30 July 2024)."The physical soldier caste of an invasive, human-infecting flatworm is morphologically extreme and obligately sterile".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.121(31).Bibcode:2024PNAS..12100953M.doi:10.1073/pnas.2400953121.PMC11295071.PMID39042696.
  41. ^Burda, H. Honeycutt; Begall, S.; Locker-Grutjen, O.; Scharff, A. (2000)."Are naked and common mole-rats eusocial and if so, why?".Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.47(5): 293–303.Bibcode:2000BEcoS..47..293B.doi:10.1007/s002650050669.S2CID35627708.Archived fromthe originalon 2016-03-04.Retrieved2007-11-30.
  42. ^O'Riain, M.J.; Faulkes, C. G. (2008). "African Mole-Rats: Eusociality, Relatedness and Ecological Constraints".Ecology of Social Evolution.Springer. pp. 207–223.doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75957-7_10.ISBN978-3-540-75956-0.
  43. ^O' Riain, M.; et al. (1996). "A Dispersive Morph in the Naked Mole-Rat".Nature.380(6575): 619–621.Bibcode:1996Natur.380..619O.doi:10.1038/380619a0.PMID8602260.S2CID4251872.
  44. ^Williams, S. A.; Shattuck, M. R. (2015)."Ecology, longevity and naked mole-rats: confounding effects of sociality?".Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences.282(1802): 20141664.doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1664.PMC4344137.PMID25631992.
  45. ^Foster, Kevin R.; Ratnieks, Francis L.W. (2005)."A new eusocial vertebrate?"(PDF).Trends in Ecology & Evolution.20(7): 363–364.Bibcode:2005TEcoE..20..363F.doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.005.PMID16701397.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 2012-03-11.Retrieved2011-04-04.
  46. ^abGintis, Herbert (2012)."Clash of the Titans. Book review of 'The Social Conquest of Earth' by Edward O. Wilson".BioScience.62(11): 987–991.doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.8.
  47. ^Kesebir, Selin (2012). "The Superorganism Account of Human Sociality: How and When Human Groups Are Like Beehives".Personality and Social Psychology Review.16(3): 233–261.doi:10.1177/1088868311430834.ISSN1088-8683.PMID22202149.
  48. ^abFoster, Kevin R.; Ratnieks, Francis L. W. (2005)."A new eusocial vertebrate?"(PDF).Trends in Ecology & Evolution.20(7): 363–364.Bibcode:2005TEcoE..20..363F.doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.005.PMID16701397.
  49. ^Chu, Carol; Buchman-Schmitt, Jennifer M.; Stanley, Ian H.; Hom, Melanie A.; Tucker, Raymond P.; Hagan, Christopher R.; Rogers, Megan L.; Podlogar, Matthew C.; Chiurliza, Bruno (2017)."The interpersonal theory of suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a decade of cross-national research".Psychological Bulletin.143(12): 1313–1345.doi:10.1037/bul0000123.PMC5730496.PMID29072480.
  50. ^abDawkins, Richard(24 May 2012). "The Descent of Edward Wilson. Book review of 'The Social Conquest of Earth' by Edward O. Wilson".Prospect.
  51. ^Pinker, Steven."The False Allure of Group Selection".Edge.Retrieved31 July2016.
  52. ^Kramer, Jos; Meunier, Joël (2016-04-28)."Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?".F1000Research.5:F1000 Faculty Rev–776.doi:10.12688/f1000research.8018.1.ISSN2046-1402.PMC4850877.PMID27158472.
  53. ^VanderLaan, Doug P.; Ren, Zhiyuan; Vasey, Paul L. (2013). "Male androphilia in the ancestral environment. An ethnological analysis".Human Nature.24(4): 375–401.doi:10.1007/s12110-013-9182-z.PMID24091924.S2CID44341304.
  54. ^Hawkes, Kristen; Coxworth, James E. (2013). "Grandmothers and the evolution of human longevity: a review of findings and future directions".Evolutionary Anthropology.22(6): 294–302.doi:10.1002/evan.21382.PMID24347503.S2CID37985774.
  55. ^Hooper, Paul L.; Gurven, Michael; Winking, Jeffrey; Kaplan, Hillard S. (2015-03-22)."Inclusive fitness and differential productivity across the life course determine intergenerational transfers in a small-scale human society".Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.282(1803): 20142808.doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2808.PMC4345452.PMID25673684.
  56. ^Lubinsky, Mark (2018)."Evolutionary justifications for human reproductive limitations".Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.35(12): 2133–2139.doi:10.1007/s10815-018-1285-3.PMC6289914.PMID30116921.
  57. ^Jetz, Walter; Rubenstein, Dustin R. (2011)."Environmental Uncertainty and the Global Biogeography of Cooperative Breeding in Birds".Current Biology.21(1): 72–78.Bibcode:2011CBio...21...72J.doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.075.PMID21185192.
  58. ^Rosenbaum, Stacy; Gettler, Lee T. (2018)."With a little help from her friends (and family) part I: the ecology and evolution of non-maternal care in mammals".Physiology & Behavior.193(Pt A): 1–11.doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.12.025.PMID29933836.S2CID49380840.
  59. ^Clutton-Brock, T. H.;Hodge, S. J.; Flower, T. P. (2008-09-01)."Group size and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in Kalahari meerkats".Animal Behaviour.76(3): 689–700.doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.03.015.ISSN0003-3472.S2CID53203398.
  60. ^"Forum: The eusociality continuum".Behavioral Ecology.6(1): 102–108. 1995.doi:10.1093/beheco/6.1.102.
  61. ^Burns, Kevin C. (2021-11-02)."On the selective advantage of coloniality in staghorn ferns (Platycerium bifurcatum, Polypodiaceae)".Plant Signaling & Behavior.16(11).Bibcode:2021PlSiB..1661063B.doi:10.1080/15592324.2021.1961063.ISSN1559-2324.PMC8525959.PMID34338155.
  62. ^Thorne, B.L.; Grimaldi, D.A.; Krishna, K. (2001) [2000]. "Early fossil history of the termites". In Abe, T.; Bignell, D.E; Higashi, M. (eds.).Termites: evolution, sociality, symbioses, ecology.Kluwer Academic Publishers.pp. 77–93.
  63. ^Darwin, Charles.On the Origin of Species,1859. Chapter 8
  64. ^Dawkins, Richard(2016) [1982]. "6. Organisms, Groups, and Memes: Replicators or Vehicles?".The Extended Phenotype.Oxford University Press.pp. 147–178.ISBN978-0198788911.
  65. ^v7, pp. 1–16, and 17-52.
  66. ^Hamilton, W. D.(20 March 1964). "The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I".Journal of Theoretical Biology.7(1): 1–16.Bibcode:1964JThBi...7....1H.doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4.PMID5875341.
  67. ^abHamilton, W. D.(20 March 1964). "The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour II".Journal of Theoretical Biology.7(1): 17–52.Bibcode:1964JThBi...7...17H.doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6.PMID5875340.
  68. ^Quiñones, Andrés E.; Pen, Ido (23 June 2017)."A unified model of Hymenopteran preadaptations that trigger the evolutionary transition to eusociality".Nature Communications.8:15920.Bibcode:2017NatCo...815920Q.doi:10.1038/ncomms15920.PMC5490048.PMID28643786.
  69. ^Trivers, Robert L.;Hare, Hope (1976). "Haplodiploidy and the evolution of social insects".Science.191(4224): 249–263.Bibcode:1976Sci...191..249T.doi:10.1126/science.1108197.PMID1108197.
  70. ^Alpedrinha, João; West, Stuart A.; Gardner, Andy (2013)."Haplodiploidy and the evolution of eusociality: worker reproduction".The American Naturalist.182(4): 421–438.doi:10.1086/671994.hdl:10023/5520.PMID24021396.S2CID6548485.
  71. ^Nowak, Martin; Tarnita, Corina;Wilson, Edward O.(26 August 2010)."The evolution of eusociality".Nature.466(7310): 1057–1062.Bibcode:2010Natur.466.1057N.doi:10.1038/nature09205.PMC3279739.PMID20740005.
  72. ^Wilson, Edward O.(2008-01-01)."One Giant Leap: How Insects Achieved Altruism and Colonial Life".BioScience.58(1): 17–25.doi:10.1641/b580106.
  73. ^abHughes, William O. H.; Benjamin P. Oldroyd; Madeleine Beekman; Francis L. W. Ratnieks (2008-05-30). "Ancestral Monogamy Shows Kin Selection Is Key to the Evolution of Eusociality".Science.320(5880): 1213–1216.Bibcode:2008Sci...320.1213H.doi:10.1126/science.1156108.PMID18511689.S2CID20388889.
  74. ^Cahan, S. H.; Gardner-Morse, E. (2013)."The emergence of reproductive division of labor in forced queen groups of the antPogonomyrmex barbatus".Journal of Zoology.291(1): 12–22.doi:10.1111/jzo.12071.
  75. ^Molteno, A. J.; Bennett, N. C. (2002). "Rainfall, dispersal and reproductive inhibition in eusocial Damaraland mole-rats (Cryptomys damarensis) ".Journal of Zoology.256(4): 445–448.doi:10.1017/s0952836902000481.
  76. ^Toth, A. L.; Robinson, G. E. (2009-01-01)."Evo-Devo and the evolution of social behavior: Brain gene expression analyses in social insects".Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology.74:419–426.doi:10.1101/sqb.2009.74.026.PMID19850850.
  77. ^abYanega, D. (1993). "Environmental influences on male production and social structure inHalictus rubicundus(Hymenoptera: Halictidae) ".Insectes Sociaux.40(2): 169–180.doi:10.1007/BF01240705.S2CID44934383.
  78. ^Shell, Wyatt A.; Rehan, Sandra M. (2017-07-24)."Behavioral and genetic mechanisms of social evolution: insights from incipiently and facultatively social bees".Apidologie.49:13–30.doi:10.1007/s13592-017-0527-1.ISSN0044-8435.
  79. ^Nowak, M. A.; Tarnita, C. E.; Wilson, E. O. (2010)."The evolution of eusociality".Nature.466(7310): 1057–1062.Bibcode:2010Natur.466.1057N.doi:10.1038/nature09205.PMC3279739.PMID20740005.
  80. ^Abbot, Patrick; et al. (2011)."Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality".Nature.471(7339): E1–E4.Bibcode:2011Natur.471E...1A.doi:10.1038/nature09831.PMC3836173.PMID21430721.
  81. ^Zara, Fernando; Balestieri, Jose (2000). "Behavioural Catalogue of Polistes versicolor Olivier (Vespidae: Polistinae) Post-emergent Colonies".Naturalia.25:301–319.
  82. ^Harrison, Mark C.; Jongepier, Evelien; Robertson, Hugh M.; Arning, Nicolas; Bitard-Feildel, Tristan; et al. (2018)."Hemimetabolous genomes reveal molecular basis of termite eusociality".Nature Ecology & Evolution.2(3): 557–566.Bibcode:2018NatEE...2..557H.doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0459-1.PMC6482461.PMID29403074.
  83. ^abcdefghijVargo, E. (1999). "Reproductive development and ontogeny or queen pheromone production in the fire antSolenopsis invicta".Physiological Entomology.24(4): 370–376.doi:10.1046/j.1365-3032.1999.00153.x.S2CID84103230.
  84. ^abcdefghijklmnFletcher, D.; Ross, K. (1985). "Regulation of Reproduction in Eusocial Hymenoptera".Annual Review of Entomology.30:319–343.doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.30.1.319.
  85. ^Carpenter, J.M (1987). "Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the Vespinae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)".Systematic Entomology.12(4): 413–431.Bibcode:1987SysEn..12..413C.doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.1987.tb00213.x.S2CID9388017.
  86. ^Feyereisen, R.; Tobe, S. (1981). "A rapid partition assay for routine analysis of juvenile hormone released by insect corpora allata".Analytical Biochemistry.111(2): 372–375.doi:10.1016/0003-2697(81)90575-3.PMID7247032.
  87. ^abcHunt, J.; Wolschin, F.; Henshaw, M.; Newman, T.; Toth, A.; Amdam, G. (17 May 2010)."Differential gene expression and protein abundance evince ontogenetic bias toward castes in a primitively eusocial wasp".PLOS ONE.5(5): e10674.Bibcode:2010PLoSO...510674H.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010674.PMC2871793.PMID20498859.
  88. ^Kamakura, Masaki (May 2011). "Royalactin induces queen differentiation in honeybees".Nature.473(7348): 478–483.Bibcode:2011Natur.473..478K.doi:10.1038/nature10093.hdl:2123/10940.PMID21516106.S2CID2060453.
  89. ^Murphy, Graham (July 2008)."'Considering Her Ways': In(ter)secting matriarchal utopias ".Science Fiction Studies.35(2): 266–280.
  90. ^Fromm, Harold (2013). "Review of Groping for Groups, by Edward O. Wilson, Jonathan Haidt, Steven Mithen, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins".The Hudson Review.65(4): 652–658.JSTOR43489291.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eusociality&oldid=1255395278"