Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T02:55:03.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human and ant social behavior should be compared in a very careful way to draw valid parallels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2016

Ewa Joanna Godzińska
Ewa Joanna Godzińska*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ethology, Department of Neurophysiology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, PL 02–093 Warsaw, Poland. e.godzinska@nencki.gov.pl http://en.nencki.gov.pl/laboratory-of-ethology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gowdy & Krall provide an interesting discussion of evolutionary origins and consequences of ultrasociality. However, some of their statements concerning various features of ant and human social behavior do not adequately reflect present knowledge about the discussed issues, which include, among others, polyethism, cultural information transfer, within-group conflicts and resistance in ant societies, and reproductive division of labor in humans.

Gowdy & Krall (G&K) provide an interesting discussion of evolutionary origins and consequences of ultrasociality, an advanced form of social behavior that evolved independently in both social insects and humans. Their reflections are thought-provoking, but some statements concerning various features of ant and human social behavior do not reflect adequately the present knowledge about the discussed issues.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Czechowski, W. & Godzińska, E. J. (2015) Enslaved ants: Not as helpless as they were thought to be. Insectes Sociaux 62:9–22. doi: 10.1007/s00040-014-0377-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godzińska, E. J., Szczuka, A. & Korczyńska, J. (1999) Maximum longevity of workers of three ant species under laboratory conditions (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 38:47–55.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1987) Kinship, recognition, disease and intelligence: Constraints of social evolution. In: Animal societies: Theories and facts, ed. Ito, Y., Brown, J. L. & Kikkawa, J., pp. 81–102. Japan Scientific Society Press.Google Scholar
Heinze, J., Hölldobler, B. & Peeters, C. (1994) Conflict and cooperation in ant societies. Naturwissenchaften 81:489–97.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. (1990) The ants. Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. (2009) The superorganism: The beauty, elegance, and strangeness of insect societies. W. W. Norton. [First Paperback edition]Google Scholar
Kuijt, I. & Finlayson, B. (2009) Evidence for food storage and predomestication granaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:10966–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812764106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, R. (1977) Foraging strategy of wood ants (Formica rufa group), I: Age polyethism and topographic traditions. Acta Zoologica Fennica 149:1–30.Google Scholar
Rosengren, R. & Fortelius, W. (1986) Ortstreue in foraging ants of the Formica rufa group – hierarchy of orienting cues and long-term memory. Insectes Sociaux 33:306–37.Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. (2014) The cultural evolution of emergent group-level traits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37(3):243–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Texier, P.-J., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.-P., Poggenpoel, C., Miller, C., Tribolo, C., Cartwright, C., Coudenneau, A., Klein, R., Steele, T. & Verna, C. (2010) A Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:6180–85. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913047107.Google Scholar