3 ms·
> very few animals other than these exhibit eusociality (humans aside, Technically, humans are not eusocial, which by definition requires a biological division
by jly 7y ago
> very few animals other than these exhibit eusociality (humans aside,
Technically, humans are not eusocial, which by definition requires a biological division of reproductive labor. Most eusocial species actually have significant morphological differences in their classes (i.e. females that physically can or cannot reproduce).
Wilson tends to repeat the idea of humans and other primates as eusocial which I find confusing.
Eusociality and its evolution is indeed a fascinating topic. There are some great discussions on this from WD Hamilton (the study of led him to inclusive fitness theory and kin selection) and Richard Alexander (who discovered the only eusocial mammal - the naked mole-rat).
- lazzlazzlazz 7y ago> humans are not eusocial, which by definition requires a biological division of reproductive labor Wouldn't the biological division of labor regarding breast-feeding in humans be sufficient? It's a significant morphological difference.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted. You're right of course that the male/female distinction of sexual reproduction is in itself is a clear case of 'biological division of reproductive labor'. Child-bearing itself is an even clearer example than breast-feeding. I'm not sure jly was really getting at the core aspects of eusociality there. Humans aren't eusocial, but we certainly have division of reproductive labor. So do non-social sexual species.