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".

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American