Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Could an Environment Sustain Large Eusocial Animals?

+0
−0

Eusociality, is the most sophisticated level of organization of sociality, is defined by the following characteristics: cooperative brood care, overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups.

Eusociality is an incredibly successful evolutionary strategy; the Hymenoptera family is one of the most species abundant and one of the largest by biomass on the planet.

But Eusocial animals are small in size. The largest of the eusocial animals are the mole rats, which of course have exponentially smaller colony sizes than ants for example.

The reason for this is rather apparent in that a larger body mass necessitates more resources, but we do have a multitude of megafauna that's lived in massive groups, just none of them eusocial.

I want to know if it would be possible to have megafauna exhibit eusocial traits, whether it is a roving herd that protects a central queen as it crosses grasslands or some sort of predatory fish school, I just want to know if you could ever get a decently sized eusocial animal.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/170360. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

Humans would seem to be a strong argument at least for the plausibility. While typical western culture doesn't exactly fit the bill, there have been arguments that some human cultures qualify.

The catch is that humans don't have morphological role segregation; the "division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups" bit is merely a social construct, and individuals might migrate between divisions during their lifetime. We also don't, typically, centralize reproduction with a single 'queen'.

Still, when you consider how close humans come to fitting the bill, it's not hard to imagine us still thriving if somehow we took the next step to having a small number of individuals responsible for mothering all offspring. At this point, we're talking more a question of biological design than environment sustainability; after all, if you take an existing human community and just tweak it so that everyone has the same (biological) mother, I don't see any obvious problems arising from that.

And... we do have some history with biological role segregation, in the form of eunuchs.

In any case, it's plausible enough that fictional examples abound. Three that come to mind off hand are Formics, Bugs, and Zerg, and there have been plenty more. (It is probably not surprising that many such examples are based on insects.)

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »