Redefining Eusociality
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Ann. Zool. Fennici 42: 573–577 ISSN 0003-455X Helsinki 21 December 2005 © Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board 2005 Redefining eusociality: concepts, goals and levels of analysis Eileen A. Lacey1 & Paul W. Sherman2 1) Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA (e-mail: [email protected]) 2) Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA (e-mail: [email protected]) Received 1 June 2005, revised version received 22 July 2005, accepted 1 July 2005 Lacey, E. A. & Sherman, P. W. 2005: Redefining eusociality: concepts, goals and levels of analy- sis. — Ann. Zool. Fennici 42: 573–577. Introduction argument became a discussion of fundamental conceptual issues in evolutionary research. A decade ago, we contributed to a series of pub- As is evident from the commentaries in this lications that explored the terminology used to issue, the passage of time has not produced a characterize the social systems of cooperatively consensus. Conceptual analyses of social behav- breeding animals (Crespi & Yanega 1995, Keller ior remain divided among schema that attempt to & Perrin 1995, Sherman et al. 1995, Reeve et differentiate eusociality from other cooperative al. 1996, Wcislo 1997). Ostensibly, this was a societies (e.g., Crespi & Yanega 1995), those that semantic debate that focused on the definition view eusociality as part of a spectrum of cooper- of “eusociality,” a term coined by Batra (1966) ative social systems (e.g., Sherman et al. 1995), to describe the social systems of bees that (1) and those that rely on phylogenetic relationships live in multi-generational groups and (2) engage to delineate social structure (e.g., Wcislo 1997). in alloparental care of young, and in which (3) As a result, the terms used to characterize animal reproduction is restricted to a few individuals societies remain diverse and largely unchanged per group. For the next 20 years, these crite- (Costa & Fitzgerald 2005). Concomittantly, the ria remained unchallenged and the term “euso- proposed development of a lexicon that encom- cial” was applied only to insects in the orders passes all cooperative societies (Costa & Fitzger- Hymenoptera and Isoptera (e.g., Wilson 1971, ald 2005) promises to expand the range of social Hölldobler & Wilson 1990). During the 1980s, systems under consideration, thereby adding new however, the array of species characterized as complexities and points of disagreement to an eusocial began to increase, leading to confusion already contentious issue. regarding the exact nature and phylogenetic dis- We believe that terminological unification tribution of this type of social system. The mul- and simplification are needed. We were — and tiple reviews of eusociality published in the mid- still are — proponents of the eusociality con- 1990s revealed markedly divergent viewpoints tinuum, a conceptual framework that unites all regarding not only terminology, but also the occurrences of group living and alloparental care goals and processes of comparative studies of under a single terminological umbrella (Sherman animal societies. Thus, what began as a semantic et al. 1995). Here, we review the foundations 574 Lacey & Sherman • ANN. ZOOL. FENNICI Vol. 42 of the continuum perspective, with emphasis as the sole axis for comparing social struc- on criticisms of this viewpoint that have arisen ture (e.g., Crespi & Yanega 1995, Costa & Fitz- during the past decade. We then consider two gerald 2005). Regarding the former, there has general sources of confusion that contribute to been a tendency to conflate the concept of the ongoing disagreements concerning the definition continuum with the quantification of reproduc- of eusociality. Finally, we suggest several direc- tive skew (Crespi & Yanega 1995). Indeed, the tions for future research that may help to resolve failure of the specific index of skew suggested current points of terminological contention. by Sherman et al. (1995) to gain favor in the literature has led some investigators to conclude that the eusociality continuum is “dead” (Costa The eusociality continuum & Fitzgerald 2005, P. Nonacs pers. comm.). We agree that better measures of skew are desir- Sherman et al. (1995) proposed that animal socie- able, but we see this challenge as fundamentally ties characterized by multi-generational groups and distinct from the conceptual argument that skew alloparental care form a continuum based on the varies continously among alloparental taxa. We degree of reproductive skew (Vehrencamp 1983) note that indices of skew are being developed within groups. The concept of the continuum that focus specifically on inequalities in repro- arose from the authors’ observations that the three duction resulting from social structure (e.g., attributes traditionally used to identify eusocial- dominance, kinship: Reeve et al. 1998, Nonacs ity in hymenopteran and isopteran insects (Batra 2003). Nevertheless, the eusociality continuum 1966, Wilson 1971) occur in a phylogenetically as a conceptual construct for understanding and diverse array of animals, including several other comparing alloparental species is independent of orders of insects (thrips: Crespi 1992; beetles: Kent any specific measure of the reproductive division & Simpson 1992; aphids: Stern & Foster 1996) as of labor within social groups. well as mammals (e.g., African mole-rats: Sher- The eusociality continuum was developed in man et al. 1991, Bennett & Faulkes 2000; dwarf the context of redefining eusociality and, hence, mongooses: Creel & Waser 1994; meerkats: Clut- using reproductive skew as the basis for compar- ton-Brock et al. 2004), birds (Florida scrub jays; ing taxa is both logical and evolutionarily com- acorn woodpeckers; Seychelles warblers: Stacey pelling. All species included in the continuum & Koenig 1990, Koenig & Dickinson 2004) and are group living and alloparental; traditionally, crustaceans (snapping shrimp: Duffy et al. 2000). it is the third criterion for eusociality — a repro- All of these taxa are group living, alloparental, and ductive division of labor — that has been contro- exhibit some degree of reproductive skew (Reeve versial and obscure. As originally defined, skew & Keller 1995, Sherman et al. 1995). However, refers to variation in direct fitness that occurs due because skew is a facultative response to ecologi- to an individual’s social environment (Vehren- cal conditions (Komdeur 1992, Hirata et al. 2005) camp 1983). As the degree of skew within social that is expected to vary continuously among spe- groups increases, the routes by which breed- cies (Sherman et al. 1995, Hart & Ratnieks 2005), ing versus non-breeding animals achieve fitness no objective distinction can be drawn between diverge, with non-breeders increasingly restricted these societies. Thus, all cooperatively breeding to “indirect” forms of fitness such as helping kin (i.e., alloparental) vertebrate species are eusocial to reproduce (Reeve 1998). Concommitantly, and, conversely, all eusocial insects are coopera- specializations for either successful breeding or tive breeders. effective alloparental care are favored, poten- tially leading to behavioral, physiological, and morphological differences between breeders and Criticisms and challenges non-breeders, as well as among non-breeding individuals. Thus, in addition to being an obvi- Criticisms of the eusociality continuum have ous basis for contrasting alloparental species, focused on either the mechanics of estimat- reproductive skew is a fundamental, causal axis ing reproductive skew or the choice of skew for comparing cooperative societies. ANN. ZOOL. FENNICI Vol. 42 • Redefining eusociality: concepts, goals and level of analysis 575 Roadblocks to consensus For biologists interested in understand- ing how reproductive differences among group At least two more general issues appear to con- members are maintained, behavioral or morpho- tribute to the ongoing debate regarding defini- logical castes may provide a useful means of tions of eusociality. One of these concerns the distinguishing between species. The fitness con- goals of comparative evolutionary research. In sequences of failing to breed, however, are the our opinion, a fundamental objective of such same regardless of the mechanisms that main- studies is to identify the general principles under- tain skew and, hence, for biologists interested lying patterns of social system diversity (Reeve in understanding why group living, alloparental & Sherman 1993, 2001, Dugatkin 2001, Reeve care, and a reproductive division of labor (i.e., 2001, Autumn et al. 2002). When searching for eusociality) occur, the presence of castes will, at general explanations, comparative data sets are best, provide only indirect information regard- most useful if they include all taxa known to ing the adaptive reasons for this form of social- exhibit the phenomena of interest. Accordingly, ity. Similarly, while phylogenetic analyses add the eusociality continuum (Sherman et al. 1995) valuable information regarding the evolutionary brings together a phylogenetically diverse col- histories of eusocial species, they do not provide lection of complex, cooperative animal socie- direct evidence of the adaptive significance of ties under a single conceptual and terminologi- social structure. cal framework, thereby facilitating potentially revealing cross-taxonomic comparisons (e.g., Andersson 1984, Shellman-Reeve 1997, Korb Toward a unified lexicon of & Schmidinger