National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$59.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

In the Light of Evolution: Volume 1. Adaptation and Complex Design (2007)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

Citation Manager

. "8 Insect Societies as Divided Organisms: The Complexities of Purpose and Cross-Purpose--JOAN E. STRASSMANN and DAVID C. QUELLER." In the Light of Evolution: Volume 1. Adaptation and Complex Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
158
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


In the Light of Evolution, Volume I: Adaptation and Complex Design

Unexpected and powerful evidence of the importance of relatedness has come from sex ratio studies. As noted above, haplodiploid female workers are related to full sisters by 3/4 and to brothers by 1/4. This implies that, other things being equal, these workers ought to prefer helping sisters (Hamilton, 1972). Specifically, Trivers and Hare (1976) showed that in a colony with a single once-mated queen, workers should prefer to invest three times as much in future queens as in males. They also showed that, in species of ants likely to have a single, once-mated queen, investment ratios are in fact closer to this 3:1 ratio than to the usual Fisherian 1:1.

More impressive evidence comes from species with variable relatedness. When a queen mates multiple times, workers will not favor this 3:1 ratio because the workers are equally related (by 1/4) to half sisters and brothers (because brothers do not have fathers, multiple mating by the queen does not change their relatedness). This means that these workers should rear more males than those in singly mated colonies, and the frequency-dependent nature of sex ratio selection should cause the two kinds of colonies to increasingly specialize (Boomsma and Grafen, 1990, 1991). Workers in colonies with singly mated queens should specialize largely in rearing queens, and workers in colonies with multiply mated queens should specialize in rearing males. This odd prediction of what has come to be called “split sex ratio theory” was strikingly confirmed in a study of the ant Formica exsecta (Sundström et al., 1996) and has been confirmed in many other species (Queller and Strassmann, 1998; Chapuisat and Keller, 1999; Bourke, 2005).

Besides showing that workers are indeed sensitive to relatedness, the sex ratio studies made an even more important point: There can be conflict within these apparently superorganismal colonies. Queens are equally related to their sons and daughters, so they should prefer the standard 1:1 sex investment ratio (Trivers and Hare, 1976). The resulting conflict can lead to inefficiencies that are decidedly against the interests of the superorganism as a whole. For example, the split sex ratio described above for Formica exsecta is achieved only after some waste. Queens in both singly and multiply mated colonies laid the same sex ratio of eggs, but workers in the singly mated colonies achieved their preferred investment in full sisters by killing many of the male larvae (Sundström et al., 1996; Chapuisat et al., 1997).

It seems paradoxical that this elegant evidence for kin selection theory comes from conflict rather than from cooperation, but there is really no contradiction. Kin selection theory shows how individuals can further the reproduction of their own genes, and this is sometimes achieved by cooperation and sometimes by conflict.

Page
158
Front Matter (R1-R18)
Part I: INTRODUCTORY ESSAY (1-2)
1 Darwin's Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer--FRANCISCO J. AYALA (3-22)
Part II: EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO BIOCOMPLEXITY ASSESSMENT (23-24)
2 Functional Information and the Emergence of Biocomplexity--ROBERT M. HAZEN, PATRICK L. GRIFFIN, JAMES M. CAROTHERS, and JACK W. SZOSTAK (25-44)
3 The Theory of Facilitated Variation--JOHN GERHART and MARC KIRSCHNER (45-64)
4 Between ‘‘Design'' and ‘‘Bricolage'': Genetic Networks, Levels of Selection, and Adaptive Evolution--ADAM S. WILKINS (65-82)
5 The Frailty of Adaptive Hypotheses for the Origins of Organismal Complexity--MICHAEL LYNCH (83-104)
Part III: FROM INDIVIDUAL ONTOGENY TO SYMBIOSIS: A HIERARCHY OF COMPLEXITY (105-108)
6 Emerging Principles of Regulatory Evolution--BENJAMIN PRUD'HOMME, NICOLAS GOMPEL, and SEAN B. CARROLL (109-128)
7 Evolution of Individuality During the Transition from Unicellular to Multicellular Life--RICHARD E. MICHOD (129-144)
8 Insect Societies as Divided Organisms: The Complexities of Purpose and Cross-Purpose--JOAN E. STRASSMANN and DAVID C. QUELLER (145-164)
9 Symbiosis as an Adaptive Process and Source of Phenotypic Complexity--NANCY A. MORAN (165-182)
Part IV: CASE STUDIES: DISSECTING COMPLEX PHENOTYPES (183-186)
10 Adaptive Evolution of Color Vision as Seen Through the Eyes of Butterflies--FRANCESCA D. FRENTIU, GARY D. BERNARD, CRISTINA I. CUEVAS, MARILOU P. SISON-MANGUS, KATHLEEN L. PRUDIC, and ADRIANA D. BRISCOE (187-204)
11 Plant Domestication, a Unique Opportunity to Identify the Genetic Basis of Adaptation--JEFFREY ROSS-IBARRA, PETER L. MORRELL, and BRANDON S. GAUT (205-224)
12 An Experimental Test of Evolutionary Trade-Offs During Temperature Adaptation--ALBERT F. BENNETT and RICHARD E. LENSKI (225-238)
13 Two Routes to Functional Adaptation: Tibetan and Andean High-Altitude Natives--CYNTHIA M. BEALL (239-256)
14 On the Origin and Evolutionary Diversification of Beetle Horns--DOUGLAS J. EMLEN, LAURA CORLEY LAVINE, and BEN EWEN-CAMPEN (257-282)
Part V: CONCLUDING ESSAY (283-284)
15 Biological Design in Science Classrooms--EUGENIE C. SCOTT and NICHOLAS J. MATZKE (285-304)
References (305-344)
Index (345-360)