Monogamy Is Responsible for the Evolution of Bees

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For decades, a divisive debate has raged among biologists over the evolution of eusocial insects—those that thrive in cooperative societies of queens, workers and drones. On one side is the argument for “kin selection,” a theory asserting that the nonreproducing members pass on their genes by helping relatives reproduce. The members of a colony should therefore be closely related. Yet those on the other side—most notably, renowned biologist Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University—contend that eusocial insects work together in colonies because it is to their individual advantage; their cooperative spirit is simply a consequence. If there is high relatedness in a colony, then it is a result of individuals choosing to stick around to reap the benefits of group life.

Researchers led by William Hughes of the University of Leeds in England say they have the first clear evidence that supports kin selection, rather than group selection, in eusociality. They examined 267 eusocial species of bees, wasps and ants and found that the insects evolved from monogamous conditions, which maximize a group’s degree of relatedness. Moreover, they found that polyandry (having more than two mates) transpired only among lineages where workers had become permanently sterile—a prediction of kin selection theory for species that have become irrevocably eusocial. Behavioral biologist Andrew Bourke of the University of East Anglia in England says that the May 30 Science study indicates that kin selection is an essential precondition to eusociality.

Wilson, however, disagrees, asserting via e-mail that Hughes’s work does not include data on many lineages that did not evolve eusociality and that the emergence of polyandry in eusocial societies has explanations not related to kin selection.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Note: This story was originally printed with the title, "Monogamy and the Queen Bee".

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American