3 ms·

TL;DR: Different colonies of these spiders had different ratios of nanny spiders to warrior spiders, based on the specific pressures of the habitat they grew up

TL;DR: Different colonies of these spiders had different ratios of nanny spiders to warrior spiders, based on the specific pressures of the habitat they grew up in. When these colonies were transplanted to a new habitat with different pressures, and then their ratio of nannies to warriors was forcibly changed to match the new habitat, the ratio quickly changed back to one that was suited to their old habitat, leading to the death of the colony. This shows that the colony as a whole evolved to have a certain ratio, and is not merely adapting its ratio on-the-fly (pun intended).

taeric 12y ago
I'm somewhat frightened by what this could imply about our cultures. :(
- a_bonobo 12y ago
  Nothing? Cultures are complicated things that may or may not be influenced by our genetic makeups. The life and death of culture involves thousands if not tens of thousands of factors, you don't directly inherit your parents' culture, you have to learn it first. This behaviour in spiders, on the other hand, is highly heritable, so it's definitely linked to a handful of genes, or maybe just one.
  - 1457389 12y ago
    Many aspects of human behavior have been found to be highly heritable too. IQ for one. Aggression for another.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    No mechanism was actually discovered to explain how this reversion process took place. Which means it could just as easily have a cultural as a genetic basis within spider societies.
  - taeric 12y ago
    Right, it could certainly be nothing. Which would be among the better things it implies. It could also be that changing the "makeup" of a society that is heavy in aggressors is not something that can be done. Unless, of course, I misunderstand what is claimed. (As always for me, very possible.)
bayesianhorse 12y ago
I don't follow this conclusion. Especially if the ratio changes back "quickly". I have yet to read the original article, but this sounds to me more like a simple dynamical system: Depending on the food "income", threats and other factors, either more nannies or more warriors hatch. The key may be whether or not the colonies revert to an ancestral composition in the wrong place.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  It's the opposite of that, and that's why it's interesting. You'd expect dynamics to produce matching warrior/nanny to their environment. Instead, even when their ratio matched the environment (ideal for individuals), the group reverted to its genetic roots (to the detriment of the individuals and group). Alternatively, when the group didn't match its environment, but the ancestors of the group did, the group reverted to matching (an important point left out of the GP).

taeric 12y ago

I'm somewhat frightened by what this could imply about our cultures. :(

a_bonobo 12y ago
Nothing? Cultures are complicated things that may or may not be influenced by our genetic makeups. The life and death of culture involves thousands if not tens of thousands of factors, you don't directly inherit your parents' culture, you have to learn it first. This behaviour in spiders, on the other hand, is highly heritable, so it's definitely linked to a handful of genes, or maybe just one.
- 1457389 12y ago
  Many aspects of human behavior have been found to be highly heritable too. IQ for one. Aggression for another.
- atlantic 12y ago
  No mechanism was actually discovered to explain how this reversion process took place. Which means it could just as easily have a cultural as a genetic basis within spider societies.
- taeric 12y ago
  Right, it could certainly be nothing. Which would be among the better things it implies. It could also be that changing the "makeup" of a society that is heavy in aggressors is not something that can be done. Unless, of course, I misunderstand what is claimed. (As always for me, very possible.)

bayesianhorse 12y ago

I don't follow this conclusion. Especially if the ratio changes back "quickly". I have yet to read the original article, but this sounds to me more like a simple dynamical system: Depending on the food "income", threats and other factors, either more nannies or more warriors hatch. The key may be whether or not the colonies revert to an ancestral composition in the wrong place.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
It's the opposite of that, and that's why it's interesting. You'd expect dynamics to produce matching warrior/nanny to their environment. Instead, even when their ratio matched the environment (ideal for individuals), the group reverted to its genetic roots (to the detriment of the individuals and group). Alternatively, when the group didn't match its environment, but the ancestors of the group did, the group reverted to matching (an important point left out of the GP).