# Reproduction in Eusocial Insects



## kamakiri (Oct 28, 2008)

Matthew Whittle said:


> I think it's a way to avoid interbreeding. If the males and females mature at different times then you dont get the same family mating with eachother.Maybe somebody can confirm or correct that?


I'm not confirming or correcting...but my unscholarly opinion is that it doesn't matter much with insects in general. Just one example would be insects in colonies...bees, ants, termites. As far as I know, most of the mating is going on between siblings.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 28, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> I'm not confirming or correcting...but my unscholarly opinion is that it doesn't matter much with insects in general. Just one example would be insects in colonies...bees, ants, termites. As far as I know, most of the mating is going on between siblings.


I am not sure what you know regarding the mating process of social insects. In most species of social insects, there is one queen and a bunch of infertile female workers. Males are not always present but are "made" at the appropriate time of year. Most mating sequences involve unmated queens leaving the nest to find, or be found by, a mate or multiple mates.

With most species, the mating process results in most queens mating with males from other colonies. In other words, there is not a lot of sibling mating taking place.

Scott


----------



## kamakiri (Oct 29, 2008)

salomonis said:


> I am not sure what you know regarding the mating process of social insects. In most species of social insects, there is one queen and a bunch of infertile female workers. Males are not always present but are "made" at the appropriate time of year. Most mating sequences involve unmated queens leaving the nest to find, or be found by, a mate or multiple mates.With most species, the mating process results in most queens mating with males from other colonies. In other words, there is not a lot of sibling mating taking place.
> 
> Scott


I'm certainly not the bee expert, but most ants and termites pair up to form new colonies by mating with siblings. Breeding caste insects that swarm are often not subject to exposure from other colonies. Pairs get made from members of the same colony and form their own new colony. Having raised several colonies of termites from single mounds and dry-wood species plus a few ant colonies, I can say for certain this is a fact.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> I'm certainly not the bee expert, but most ants and termites pair up to form new colonies by mating with siblings. Breeding caste insects that swarm are often not subject to exposure from other colonies. Pairs get made from members of the same colony and form their own new colony. Having raised several colonies of termites from single mounds and dry-wood species plus a few ant colonies, I can say for certain this is a fact.


kamakiri,

I never said all queens mate with males from other colonies. But for species that have mating flights that is the general idea. Why do you think ant colonies of the same species synchronize their mating flights? Can you think of any other reason why they would all have their mating flight within the same few days? Look, species have to avoid too much inbreeding and this is how ants that have mating flights do it.

You have to realize what you see in captivity does not necessarily mean anything in regards to what happens in nature. Do some research and come back and tell me I am wrong about this. If you do the research, you won't be telling me I am wrong....

Termites? I hate them and have never paid attention to what they do or why they do it. But, termites with mating flights do the same thing as ants. Termite colonies of the same species synchronize their mating flights. Again, to get queens and kings from different colonies together. Here is an interesting article on termite heredity that discusses aspects of this:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v80/n1/full/6882770a.html

Here is a quote:

"...it is possible that new colonies may occasionally originate from sibling pairs, rather than intercolony matings."

Anyway, you might want research some of this stuff before you say what you say is "fact".

Scott


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri,

This article explains why same lineage (brother/sister, cousin/cousin, etc.) matings are bad for at least one ant species:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1569181

The reason provided applies to most ant species.

Scott


----------



## kamakiri (Oct 29, 2008)

Well, I guess then you two have it all figgered out!  

Forgive me for continued digression on the eusocial species...

But inbreeding *is* critical to the success of these insects.

My point in bringing them up is simple: Inbreeding isn't that bad for insects in general. Proof can be found in parthenogenic species, and in those which can reproduce both sexually and asexually.

Our disagreement is simple about the eusocial sibling mating: Scott says most do not, and I disagree based on my experience and publications printed before the almighty internet. Even reading into the links you posted, all the reasearch and testing indicates a high level of inbreeding in social insect populations. I am certainly aware of the benefits and occaisional neccessity to outcross, but I believe inbreeding is *critical* for insects with caste systems. Even to the extent that it may be the key to their evolution as such. Quoting very select portions from a publication regarding a single species on Jamaica from a quick internet search doesn't qualify as proof in my book. Believe what you want.

But back to the original question...

I do believe there is a statistical advantage for males to develop a bit faster than the females...but only to the extent that makes them ready to breed as soon as females are. We all agree that results in captivity to not indicate what will happen in the wild. I suspect it just means that we typically overfeed our males.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri,

Why is it that "Inbreeding isn't that bad for insects in general"? By the way, exceptions such as full or partial parthenogenic reproduction don't prove anything other than that they are exceptions to the rule.

Please explain why "inbreeding *is* critical to the success of these insects". Why do you "believe inbreeding is *critical* for insects with caste systems"? What "testing indicates a high level of inbreeding in social insect populations"?

While the quotes I provide are from Internet sources, my position is based on knowledge gained from studying and research started in the mid 1970's.

Scott


----------



## kamakiri (Oct 29, 2008)

salomonis said:


> kamakiri,Why is it that "Inbreeding isn't that bad for insects in general"? By the way, exceptions such as full or partial parthenogenic reproduction don't prove anything other than that they are exceptions to the rule.
> 
> Please explain why "inbreeding *is* critical to the success of these insects". Why do you "believe inbreeding is *critical* for insects with caste systems"? What "testing indicates a high level of inbreeding in social insect populations"?
> 
> ...


Funny...my opinion is based on research and experimentation from the mid '70s to the late '90s. So?

Just to post an example of the internet fallacy:

I googled "inbreeding insects social ant"

Clicked on the first link and viola:

Lack of inbreeding avoidance in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile 

Took me three minutes including the 0.29 seconds for google.

-----------------------------------

To your other questions:

Do you think caste systems came from nowhere?

Did you even read the whole page(s) for the links you posted? I'm talking about the results of the genetic testing therein.

How does a colonizing species expand quickly in a geographic sense? By finding non-existant, unrelated mates? You do the math.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> Just to post an example of the internet fallacy:I googled "inbreeding insects social ant"
> 
> Clicked on the first link and viola:
> 
> ...


Did you read the article to determine why it was written. The authors said:

"The aim of this study was to determine whether genetic cues can be used to discriminate kin from non-kin within colonies as a means to avoid inbreeding".

They then say:

"As in most other animals, inbreeding is probably detrimental and rare in ants and other eusocial Hymenoptera (Crozier, 1980; Crozier et al., 1984; Pamilo, 1983; Ross and Carpenter, 1991; Ross and Fletcher, 1986). Dispersal is probably the primary mechanism preventing inbreeding. In most ants, winged males and females emerge from many nests simultaneously and undergo large mating flights before mating, thus greatly decreasing the probability of close relatives contacting one another (Baudry et al., 1998; Crozier, 1980)."

The article concludes that, in their tests, _Linepithema humile_ did not use genetic cues as a means to avoid inbreeding. That does not mean that _L. humile_ prefers inbreeding or that it is desireable. It just wasn't avoided by genetic cues. _Linepithema humile_ colonies are made up of many queens and do not have mating flights. Mating takes place in the nest and new colonies are formed by budding.

Here is another quote from the article:

"It is important to note, however, that the selective pressure to avoid sib-matings might not be very strong in our study population because colonies contain a high number of queens (Keller et al., 1989), leading to a relatively low probability of sib-mating even if matings would occur randomly between sexuals. Selection for a mechanism preventing sib-mating is presumably higher in native populations (Argentina and Brazil) where queen number per colony is frequently much lower than in introduced French populations (Pedersen J, Giraud T, and Keller L, unpublished data)."

If you read the text, the article does not promote you point of view.

Scott


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> Do you think caste systems came from nowhere?


I guess you are going to have to explain the point you are trying make because I am not getting it.

Scott


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> Did you even read the whole page(s) for the links you posted? I'm talking about the results of the genetic testing therein.


Yes, I did. Which articles are referring to and what do you think they say that support your position?

Scott


----------



## kamakiri (Oct 29, 2008)

"...probably detrimental..." Big assumption. They don't even say why.

"...did not use genetic cues as a means to avoid inbreeding...". This was written from the perspective that inbreeding IS bad. Look at it the other way around. Insects are not humans and we're not talking about your sister.

"If you read the text, the article does not promote you point of view." They also do not disprove it.

---------------

Still interested in your response to these two:

Do you think caste systems came from nowhere?

How does a colonizing species expand quickly in a geographic sense? By finding non-existant, unrelated mates? You do the math.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> "...probably detrimental..." Big assumption. They don't even say why."...did not use genetic cues as a means to avoid inbreeding...". This was written from the perspective that inbreeding IS bad. Look at it the other way around. Insects are not humans and we're not talking about your sister.
> 
> "If you read the text, the article does not promote you point of view." They also do not disprove it.


kamakiri,

The two gentlemen that wrote that article are not some jokers making assumptions. Look here:

Dr. Laurent Keller

http://www.unil.ch/dee/page7717.html

Dr. Denis Fournier

http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~dfournie/Denis...er/Welcome.html

If you check up on their credentials, you would see that know a heck of lot more about ants, mating behavior, and genetics than you of I do.

Scott


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> How does a colonizing species expand quickly in a geographic sense? By finding non-existant, unrelated mates? You do the math.


It doesn't. Range expansion does not happen quickly and normal mating behavior is observed.

Scott


----------



## kamakiri (Oct 29, 2008)

salomonis said:


> kamakiri,The two gentlemen that wrote that article are not some jokers making assumptions. Look here:
> 
> Dr. Laurent Keller
> 
> ...


People with credentials are still allowed to make assumptions...

People with credentials trying to publish a study and get funding sometimes make even more.


----------



## kamakiri (Oct 29, 2008)

salomonis said:


> It doesn't. Range expansion does not happen quickly and normal mating behavior is observed.Scott


uh OK!


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 29, 2008)

kamakiri said:


> People with credentials are still allowed to make assumptions...People with credentials trying to publish a study and get funding sometimes make even more.


kamakiri,

It's clear you are not interested in anything other than being right. That means that I am wasting my time. But I do strongly recommend that you get some actual education on the subject. The authors reference a significant number of articles to substantiate their assumptions. But I guess all those folks are making stuff up too.

Scott


----------



## kamakiri (Oct 30, 2008)

salomonis said:


> kamakiri,It's clear you are not interested in anything other than being right.
> 
> Scott


Says the guy who has had long drawn out arguments with several members of this board.  Perhaps you now understand the point I am really trying to make.  Have a good day.


----------



## Peter Clausen (Oct 30, 2008)

Moderator's Note: All the posts above (1-18) were transferred from another section of the forum because they were off-topic.


----------

