Talk:Eusociality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbeqaj.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 20:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Article cleanup

This article sort of has a disorganized laundry list of organisms which present eusocial behaviors. It is in need of drastic revision, and perhaps moving that list of organisms to a "list page" linked to from this main page? I'll take a crack at reorganizing the insects section, but the whole article needs help. It is a shame to see it in this state, given how relatively important/interesting eusocial behaviors are to evolutionary biology as a science. Aderksen (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Introduction Paragraph S%@#s

<current introduction> Eusociality (Greek eu: "good/real" + "social") is a term used for the highest level of social organization in a hierarchical classification.

The lower levels of social organization, presociality, were classified using different terms, including presocial, subsocial, semisocial, parasocial and quasisocial.[1] </current introduction>

I will try to improve it, possibly by "borrowing" from the Merriam-Websters definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhkramer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting descriptions of eusociality?

The fifth paragraph (counting the numbered list of eusociality's "defining features" as second) allows eusociality as evolutionarily stable thanks to "superorganism theory," which is said to "make sense only when the sterile caste is physically sterile and not simply being repressed." At the end of the subsequent paragraph, in the discussion of eusociality in mammals, the claim is made that "some canids can [less rigorously] be argued to be eusocial, since only the alpha male and female will breed [... although] the other members of the pack are not sterile, but are dissuaded from breeding by aggressive behavior on the part of the breeding pair."

These are two contradictory claims that cannot both be true. Either eusociality is an altruistic function of a gestalt, wherein nonreproductive members are "physically sterile" and "not repressed"--and canids in their repressive, aggressive breeding-control behavior are something other than eusocial, "less rigorous" definition or not--or else eusociality is not strictly defined by the requirements of some sterility and non-repression, which would revert to the problem of "zero" fitness on the part of the nonreproductive members.

This is merely apparent on the surface; I have no depth in my understanding of the subject, so if anyone who knows can clarify this (both to me and for the sake of a consistant and clear article), please do.

GrammarGeek 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

incongruent definitions?

In this article, the spectrum from presocial to eusocial includes the state called "parasocial". According to pages

parasocial and parasocial interaction, the term is used differently. According to m-w.com and thefreedictionary.com the term does not exist. Top google matches go with the linked wiki pages, rather than this one. Parasocial does not refer to the extent how well a set of animals is organized, but to a specific relation of one person to another.Anapazapa (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The article does indicate that there has been a "terminology soup"- you can see that the term parasocial does have a specific meaning in the context of invertebrates - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=parasociality+insects&btnG=Search but the linked articles obviously need to explain this or a new link may be needed. Shyamal (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eusociality > Prosociality?

This article describes that eusociality is the "highest form of sociality". Isn't that basically saying that prosociality is somehow underneath eusociality? Is this a matter of fact? In short, citation? 24.96.150.251 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ug-lee

OK, this article was one big, ugly chunk of shapeless paragraphs and rambling technobabble.

I've made some attempt to improve its readability and clarity, hopefully this is a start. --Kaz 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sisters are more related to each other than to their offspring" - sorry but the whole sisters / supersisters term needs a little more explanation. Aren't they sterile? DeadMansShoes (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - many eusocial species have workers that are capable of reproducing. You have also, perhaps inadvertently, expressed why some researchers emphasize maternal control as an evolutionary driving force; if you give birth to sterile daughters, then they are compelled to become workers, since they no longer have the choice to reproduce themselves. Dyanega (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose making Evolution of Eusociality a separate page MosesMelanogaster (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as theory?

This article talks about various theories and how they relate to Eusociality, but then ends up stating evolution as matter-of-fact. It's still a theory, no matter how much you don't want it to be. EmeraldElement 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evolution is a scientific theory and carries a different meaning than the common usage. Human step 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. On the other hand the article does focus a little too much on evolution, IMO. Steve Dufour 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any scientific article that expects to be taken seriously should hardly waste time on criticizing evolution. It is a theory indeed, but it is widely accepted - on solid grounds - as the most probable one to date. This article would be quite incomplete without reference to evolution, and quite off-topic if it started questioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.61.38 (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, even if it is comonly believed does that make it right? Would it really be incomplete without evolution? no. How would it be incomplete, above its stating facts, not unfalsifiable theories. The article itself does actually question it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.0.136 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the points you are trying make with respect to this article. Have you read
Evolution as theory and fact ? Understanding the processes that produced eusocial insects and understanding the processes that drive evolution are obviously closely related. Can you provide concrete examples of how you think the article could be improved ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


It's obvious EmeraldElement has little to no understanding of science or the nomenclature it employs. Scientists now use the term 'theory' to describe most of the basic precepts used when explaining phenomena rather than differentiating between the terms Law and Theory (as was once done). Many layman have yet to adapt to this shift, leading to your present misunderstanding. This is easily remedied; read the first few pages of nearly any science textbook. I oppose any change to the article in line with EmeraldElement's post.--Roliverroliver (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Examples

"The Nac Mac Feegle, a Gnomish race in Terry Pratchett Discworld series, possess a eusocial culture, with hundreds of brothers begotten of one queen, called a kelda." Thats wrong, so I removed it. Eusociality is when they have sterile workers, none of the Nac Mac Feegle are sterile, and if they are, it is not mentioned. Aeti 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article for the Nac Mac Feegle and I think they might actually be a legitimate example, at least as far as imaginary creatures go. However, I've removed
Tyranids as I can't find any information on their reproduction. Shayno 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I realise the Nac Mac Feegle are hardly essential to the article, but while the books don't specify that any of the Feegle are sterile, they do state that only one of the males breeds with the kelda (her choice), while the rest fight and steal food. Does this make the Feegle eusocial? Among Naked Mole Rats all the rats are capable of having young, but many don't through stress. Is the situation with the Feegles comparable? Kaid100 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meerkats

Would meerkats count as an additional type of mammal in this catergory? Only the dominant meerkat matriarch is expected to breed but the other females are not sterile. They communally look after the young as well.

No, there is no sterile worker caste, therefore no eusociality by anyone's definition. To people who study eusocial insects, there are NO eusocial mammals, since even in mole rats the workers are not *irreversibly* sterile, the way they are in most sucoail insects. Dyanega 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still they should be mentioned, but with a disclaimer that they are not "true" eusocialites. Humans could also be mentioned since we often have non-reproducers helping raise their siblings' kids. Steve Dufour 00:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't until the discovery of naked mole rats that ANY mammals ever even came close to being considered eusocial, including humans - there is a definition, one that's been in place for decades, and humans do not fit that definition. If you want to publish a NEW definition of eusociality, and write it so that humans qualify, and see how well it is accepted by the scientific community, then that might be a different matter. Dyanega 06:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting changing the exact scientific definition. However it might add interest to the article if "eusocial tendencies" in humans and other mammals were mentioned, but only if a secondary source had said it first of course. (Please don't misunderstand this, but I think it would be worse if people quit reading the article out of boredom than if they were fed a little off-topic trivia to keep them interested -- or to help understand the concept. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject however.) Steve Dufour 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many eusocial insects themselves do not have an entirely sterile worker caste, however. The laying worker bee is one example, though fertility encompasses only 1% of the caste; in some leafcutter ants, reproductive workers are enough of a problem that nonreproductives must enforce the law.[1] Revereche (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that overlap of generations and cooperative care of offspring (2 of the 3 defining criteria) occur in a vast number of living organisms, then - in that sense - there are many, many species with "eusocial tendencies". Realistically, the essential part of the definition, and the thing the article is intended to communicate, is just how important and unusual the "reproductive division of labor" aspect is. Eusociality is a very rare and peculiar phenomenon, in terms of the number of existing lineages that exhibit it, and perhaps only taken for granted because a few of the organisms that DO exhibit it are so familiar (ants, honey bees, termites); the bottom line, though, is that humans and virtually all other cooperatively-breeding mammals don't even come close to the sort of system seen in these insects. It may seem like it's just a technicality, but it's the kind of major technicality that makes for complete and unquestionable distinction between the things being compared - sort of like saying aside from humans not having wings, we have "flying tendencies" (which, in a very real sense, we DO - but not the sort of thing that would lead a biologist to classify humans as a species that is capable of flight). In that same way, whatever behaviors we may show that resemble those of eusocial species, we still could never classify humans AS eusocial. Even as the present definition stands, it is at odds with the original concept of the term, which was that "castes" were permanent, irreversible states - which is not true for naked mole rats, but is true for all other eusocial organisms. Rather than coin a new term describing the behavior of mole rats, the vertebrate biologists essentially did what I suggested earlier - they re-wrote the definition of eusociality so that they would be able to say that there was a mammal that was eusocial, and their arguments were persuasive enough that the point was effectively conceded (though there is still some debate - a lot of the utility in the categorization of social behaviors ultimately comes down to what sorts of questions you're asking, and for some of those questions, it's useful to consider mole rats as eusocial, but not for all such questions). Dyanega 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I came to this article because it is linked from the first sentence of Ant, which I was working on. I still think this article could be a little more friendly to the average person who doesn't know anything about the concept. Steve Dufour 15:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"2 of the 3 defining criteria" it seems they meet all three with the current definition - "reproductive division of labor (with or without sterile castes) " DeadMansShoes (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no species on earth where every single female has exactly the same number of offspring. Literally, then, EVERY species on earth has a "reproductive division of labor". Obviously, one cannot interpret "reproductive division of labor" to mean simply that some females have more offspring than others. It was implicit in the original usage of the phrase that this meant there were qualitatively different classes of females, one of which had a characteristic and qualitatively different level of reproductive output; the qualifier is that obligate sterility is not necessary, but that even if not, the less-reproductive class of females is a well-defined class. This is true for mole rats (which is why the point was conceded), but is NOT true for humans or any other vertebrates. This concept has been expanded upon in the elaboration of "skew theory". Dyanega (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about armadilloes, who consistently birth identical quadruplets? Revereche (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www1.bio.ku.dk/forskning/oe/cse/formidling/videnskabelige_artikler/dijkstra_etal_2010.pdf/

Fictional examples moved from article

This article is not the place to list fictional examples. No doubt some of these are interesting, but they have no relevance to the scientific nature of the article. Accordingly, I have moved the content from the article to the above. If others want to pursue the topic, perhaps a new article might be created. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ in particular Chapter 47, Coalescent, Del Rey, 2003

Expert needed

I know, since Hamilton it's the textbook case. But the way it is usually depicted, while utterly verifiable, is also utterly wrong. The problems (and the more recent literature should consider them):

  1. "Average" does not exist in evolution. Natural selection acts on specific individuals, not theoretical averages. In effect, it is only the queen's haplotype that counts. Besides, Hamilton's neat model has nothing to do with the real "dirty" world of evolution, where things like crossing-over occur. Whether his percentage valurea actually hold true has never been tested. Even for selection on allele pools (as in kin selection) it cannot be considered proven: an allele's fitness should be the same under eusocial and noneusocial conditions for the equations to have any basis in reality. That may or may not be the case, but from the looks of it it seems the latter rather than the former.
  2. The phylogenetic pattern of eusociality in Hymenoptera is insufficiently known. What seems clear is that at least in ants, it is far more complex than assumed, with eusociality apparently being gained and lost repeatedly, that multiqueen colonies exist - sometimes parallel, in the same species, with "pure" Hamiltonian eusociality - etc.
  3. Haplodiploid insects are not at all the only eusocial insects. Some examples are given, but the most glaring omission is termites (only mentioned briefly). Here, the situation is different and actually far closer to Hamilton's calculations than in eusocial Hymenoptera, as it seems - although theoretically they should not. It does, because most organisms have means to "mix" their genome before producing gametes, and these mechanisms can be more or less efficient.

I would totally stick to Hölldobler and the work that builds upon his here (compare dawkin's "

extended phenotype" and think of Hölldobler's model of a similarly but socially "extended organism"). As opposed to Hamilton, he does not believe that all ants are genetically alike, and if there is (except E.O. Wilson) a single person in the history of mankind that knows more about antsd than Hölldobler, I have not heard of that person. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Not so paradoxical to Darwin after all

The "Theories of social evolution" section states "eusocial animals had appeared paradoxical even to Darwin". This is not the impression you get by reading On the origin of species, quote (my emphasis):

With these facts before me, I believe that natural selection, by acting
on the fertile parents, could form a species which should regularly
produce neuters, either all of large size with one form of jaw, or all
of small size with jaws having a widely different structure; or lastly,
and this is our climax of difficulty, one set of workers of one size and
structure, and simultaneously another set of workers of a different size
and structure;--a graduated series having been first formed, as in the
case of the driver ant, and then the extreme forms, from being the most
useful to the community, having been produced in greater and greater
numbers through the natural selection of the parents which generated
them; until none with an intermediate structure were produced.
Thus, as I believe, the wonderful fact of two distinctly defined castes
of sterile workers existing in the same nest, both widely different from
each other and from their parents, has originated. We can see how useful
their production may have been to a social community of insects, on the
same principle that the division of labour is useful to civilised man.
As ants work by inherited instincts and by inherited tools or weapons,
and not by acquired knowledge and manufactured instruments, a perfect
division of labour could be effected with them only by the workers being
sterile; for had they been fertile, they would have intercrossed, and
their instincts and structure would have become blended. And nature
has, as I believe, effected this admirable division of labour in the
communities of ants, by the means of natural selection. But I am bound
to confess, that, with all my faith in this principle, I should never
have anticipated that natural selection could have been efficient in so
high a degree, had not the case of these neuter insects convinced me
of the fact. I have, therefore, discussed this case, at some little
but wholly insufficient length, in order to show the power of natural
selection, and likewise because this is by far the most serious special
difficulty, which my theory has encountered. The case, also, is very
interesting, as it proves that with animals, as with plants, any amount
of modification in structure can be effected by the accumulation of
numerous, slight, and as we must call them accidental, variations, which
are in any manner profitable, without exercise or habit having come into
play. For no amount of exercise, or habit, or volition, in the utterly
sterile members of a community could possibly have affected the
structure or instincts of the fertile members, which alone leave
descendants. I am surprised that no one has advanced this demonstrative
case of neuter insects, against the well-known doctrine of Lamarck.

The statement should be sourced or removed. --81.229.102.134 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Darwin's special difficulty: the evolution of “neuter insects” and current theory" from Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2011) 65:481–492 discusses the issue in some depth. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference, one conclusion of that article fits my understanding: "Perhaps the biggest advance between Darwin and Hamilton is that it was Hamilton, not Darwin, who saw that the evolution of altruistic behavior was a major evolutionary problem." I will try to rephrase the statement along these lines. --81.229.102.134 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caste (biology)

For some reason Caste (biology) redirects here. What is needed is an article which simply describes caste systems in biology, instead of (attempting) an explanation and history of the theory. ~Anyway, ... I'll put this on my 2-dü list (№ 3,643) ~E : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC) ~Btw, I was looking for something about the "nasute caste" - relating to termites. It seems to be a sub-caste (sub-class?) of the soldier caste, but... (still looking) ;)[reply]

Examples

The first paragraph of this section needs a bit of organization and revision. It is currently a mish-mash of examples without too terrible much coordination. That could stand to be repaired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aderksen (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvaged content from another article

I had to remove the Eusociality section from the article

WP:OFFTOPIC, but some it if may be useful in this article. jonkerz ♠talk 00:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Zorapterans

Is Zoraptera a Eusocial genus? The national Audubon society field guide to north American insects & spiders lists them alongside Termites and Ants, and they supposedly live in colonies[1], and have a wingless and alate caste[2] but they're not mentioned here. TermiteSoldier (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://tolweb.org/Zoraptera
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoraptera


Humans

Has anyone argued against Wilsons description of humans as eusocial? I believe this is a standard claim in the literature, even often used to explain human cognitive adaptations. It seems to me that human eusociality merits more attention in the article, and that unless there is an actual debate about whether humans are eusocial, that the statement should be reworded so that instead of being attributed to Wilson, it simply be stated in wikipedias voice.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was highly controversial. Here's an instance. It may be that evolutionary biologists broadly agree with Wilson's 2015 claim – I suspect that may be mainly a question of whether the human kind of sociality is commensurable with the nest-of-insects kind of eusociality, or something else entirely - but that other groups of people radically disagree. Among biologists, Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson described humans in 2010 as "loosely characterized as eusocial" (which they support with a citation), implying a difference in definition. Perhaps Wilson's recent claim is out on a limb. Either way, it would be best to continue to attribute the claim to Wilson. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, humans fulfill all the aspects of the given definition so I don't see why it would be a loose definition. I also don't think describing Wilson as an ant specialist is fair , he is known as a generalist biologist (among the most recognized) and specifically as an expert in social behavior and it's evolution. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Humans don't fulfil key ingredients of the definition(s) given, especially the key one that most of the females give up reproductive rights to support the one or few reproductives (queens), that there is "reproductive division of labour". (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990) Wilson is the world's leading ant specialist, but he is of course also wider than that, I'll tweak it for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not part of the definition currently given in the article's lead which mentions only cooperative care of off-spring and division of labor where some members are non-reproductive. Humans of course fulfill both of those criteria in terms of actual practices - although in humans as opposed to insects it is not based in biological necessity. I am finding more references for human eusociality - and think I will write a subsection on the topic, probably under "mammals". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just saw your paragraph in the definition debate section - I think it is good. Perhaps that section should be moved up to the beginning of the article?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still working on people's responses to Wilson 2012. When I'm done (in the next hour or so), then we can look at the article's structure afresh and perhaps reorg slightly and tweak the lead also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that it has been suggested that humans dp have reproductive division for example when non-reproductive females participate in childcare. It has also been suggested that homosexuality has been positively selected because of its contributions to childcare.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are true, but they do not constitute reproductive division of labor in the biologists' sense, which would mean in the human case a science fiction world where a large percentage of women would be barred from reproducing. I have finished my edits and have reorganised the article as you suggested. Feel free to tweak. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is in fact something that biologists are discussing - as the debates about the definition describes. The difference of course is that there is no biologically defined class of humans who are biologically non-reproductive, so of course it is different from what is found in eusocial insects where eusociality is hardwired. But if eusociality is simply defined as the practice and the potential of group selection then I dont see why humans wouldnt qualify. I found several other papers arguing for human eusociality - Laura Betzig and several articles in the 2014 special issue of Human Nature for example.[1][2]. And [file.scirp.org/pdf/NS_2016012815054967.pdf[predatory publisher] this]and this·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eusociality absolutely isn't "group selection", it's straight Kin selection. I've got to go now, and can't read some of the above links. I'm sure I've covered the core position of most biologists, so please take care that anything you add isn't verging on the fringe, which does exist out there unfortunately, but feel free to edit. I'll come and have a look in the autumn/fall. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eusociality is a precondition for a theory of group selection. I realize that a most biologists do not believe in group selection - but the concept requires eusociality to even work theoretically (eusociality does not require group selection of course). The one who makes the relation between eusociality and group selection is Wilson, and I think that connection is at the root of the debate that we are describing - and perhaps part of the reluctance to describe humans as eusocial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, group selection is considered seriously wrong by evolutionary biologists, and is a major reason why Pinker, Dawkins and others were so saddened by Wilson's change of mind after his retirement. Group selection was the basis of much muddled, non-mathematical thinking in the biology of something over half a century ago (before Hamilton's 1964 paper, basically), with hopeless concepts like "for the good of the species". You might be right that it has something to do with the human question, but the main issue there is simply that we don't behave like eusocial insects with gyne and worker castes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(much later) - I'm afraid this section continues to grow. The coverage is borderline undue for this article's subject which covers a non-species topic across all animals; we risk coatrack and even fringe here. I do not think the coverage of a single species, no matter how self-obsessed humans are, should be any longer than that of any other group (much bigger than a single species), and it is getting that way, a clear warning sign. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the section. The entire article is full of blow-by-blow academic debates (for example the 416-word section on the debate over the definition of 'eusociality'), and I think could use some shortening. JDowning (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definition debates

I have shortened this section, but suggest removing it completely. The section 'history' already covers the history of how eusociality is defined, and I feel that is an adequate level of detail for this article. Thoughts? JDowning (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing C1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CalebThomasBrownell (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SMadsenHardy (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Wolverine XI (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Eusociality/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]


Review

Interesting article, will look more into it.

talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • from Greek Remove from
    • Done.
  • First sentence is too long, suggest splitting before is defined by
    • Done.
  • Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste. Remove one instance of "at least"
    • Done.
  • There are two eusocial vertebrates among rodents I don't get, are not all rodents vertebrates?
    • Fixed.
  • Eusociality has evolved multiple times in different insect orders. Needs more explaining and needs to be turned into a paragraph
    • Extended, but this is just a lead-in sentence, with the explanations in the subsections below.
  • Please find a better image for "In termites"
    • No, it's an excellent photo of good resolution clearly showing different termite castes, as the caption states.
  • Also add an image of a queen, particularly the termite queen, as she's very weird
    • I think one image is sufficient for the point here, which is that termites are eusocial, with castes: we have no need to go into queen anatomy for the purposes of this article, and Termite is linked for any reader who wishes to go into this group in more detail.
  • Eusociality has arisen in three different lineages among colonial crustaceans. Has arisen?
    • Edited, but it's quite normal language among biologists.
  • Synalpheus regalis, Synalpheus microneptunus, Synalpheus filidigitus, Synalpheus elizabethae, Synalpheus chacei, Synalpheus riosi, Synalpheus duffyi, and Synalpheus cayoneptunus. I see they all have the genus name Synalpheus, so I suppose it's only this genus that exhibits eusociality. Specify on that please.
    • Done.
  • Usually living in harsh and limited environments Harsh to us but maybe not to them.
    • Just going by the source here; the point is that the adaptation is to the environment, so it's a highly relevant concern. What they may feel about it is not knowable.
  • An early 21st century Are we already in the mid 21st century?
    • No, but we can't say use terms like "present" that instantly expire, so we describe the period by name.
      • At least 2005?
        • The debate spanned at least from 2005 to 2012 (per the cited sources) and likely continued beyond that time.
          • Mention that the first sentence is talking about a 2005 debate and the second one about a 2012 debate. The thing is that debates never end; some folks still think the Earth is flat despite the evidence.
            • Edited. Since we agree the debate is open-ended I've removed the time mention.
  • how can individuals incapable of passing on their genes evolve and persist? Since when do we ask questions in articles?
    • Edited.
  • Why is ecology under evolution?
    • Moved.
  • In "Inclusive fitness and haplodiploidy", please remove the two subheadings
    • No, they make the article more readable, telling the reader what the texts are trying to achieve. In the special case where, as here, opposite arguments need to be presented, we would run the risk of confusing readers, and we would have editors telling us the article was disorganized and contradictory.
  • Multilevel selection & inclusive and fitness haplodiploidy should go under ecology
    • Done. This means that the main heading is 'Evolutionary ecology' (and is why these were under Evolution).
  • What is happening in human culture?
    • Not quite sure what you mean here. This is the usual 'In culture', 'Interactions with humans', 'In human culture' section where we describe human cultural perceptions of the topic, i.e. teddy bears in the Bear article etc. But I've found an interesting discussion in The Hudson Review which makes the section more substantial, so perhaps that answers your question.
  • One more, you need to mention when other groups evolved eusociality, not only termites.
    • We have a date for the Ants, actually. These two groups are complete eusocial clades, not the case in the other groups of insects, where eusocial species are among (many) non-eusocial groups, so dates (if they can be found) would not apply to the whole of the wasps or the whole of the bees, for instance. I think we're best leaving it as it is to avoid misleading readers.
      • OK, then mention the dates for other animals and plants, like the mole-rats and ferns.
        • Um, the point is that these are the two largest 100%-of-their-groups (infraorder/family), whole clades which are both familiar and all of them eusocial: not true of any of the other insect groups. The dates give some definitely-useful guiderails for readers new to the subject.

Sources

  • Wilson 1971 needs page nos.
    • Fixed.
  • Hölldobler 1990 needs page nos.
    • Fixed.
  • Cite error in ref 40
    • Fixed params.
  • Wilson 2012 needs page nos.
    • Replaced with secondary source.
  • McMahon 1992 needs page nos.
    • Removed.
  • ref 63 has pn tag
    • Fixed.
  • ref 64 needs serious attention
    • Removed.

That's all from me. Once completed, I'd be happy to promote.

talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eusociality&oldid=1211455027"