Eusociality has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 2, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
I propose making Evolution of Eusociality a separate page MosesMelanogaster ( talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Evolution is a scientific
theory and carries a different meaning than the common usage.
Human step
23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
"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)
References
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)
References
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):
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)
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):
The statement should be sourced or removed. -- 81.229.102.134 ( talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
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) ;)
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)
I had to remove the Eusociality section from the article Eciton burchellii because it was too WP:COATRACK-y and WP:OFFTOPIC, but some it if may be useful in this article. jonkerz ♠ talk 00:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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 |
Reviewer: 20 upper ( talk · contribs) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Interesting article, will look more into it. 20 upper ( talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
That's all from me. Once completed, I'd be happy to promote. 20 upper ( talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Eusociality has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 2, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
I propose making Evolution of Eusociality a separate page MosesMelanogaster ( talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Evolution is a scientific
theory and carries a different meaning than the common usage.
Human step
23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
"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)
References
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)
References
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):
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)
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):
The statement should be sourced or removed. -- 81.229.102.134 ( talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
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) ;)
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)
I had to remove the Eusociality section from the article Eciton burchellii because it was too WP:COATRACK-y and WP:OFFTOPIC, but some it if may be useful in this article. jonkerz ♠ talk 00:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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 |
Reviewer: 20 upper ( talk · contribs) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Interesting article, will look more into it. 20 upper ( talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
That's all from me. Once completed, I'd be happy to promote. 20 upper ( talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)