Hierarchy in ants

Well, really no one has heard anything about this or does not even think about it?..

In fact, I think that in case of unfavorable conditions, first of all, they strive to preserve the female, and second of all, the winged females and males. And workers - on the side, as a consumable material.

Actually, this is not quite a hierarchy. In addition, there can be a lot of females in one anthill, and they can hatch from the larvae of workers in the event of the absence of the "parent". Although, on the other hand, since workers do not reproduce (normally), they will not stand up for their "interests" in any case.

It is precisely because, in my opinion, there is no hierarchy among workers as such.

Here you probably forgot that an active nest of social insects almost always contains adult insects and larvae from food consumers. Hierarchy in the sense that humans have it, so even apes don't have it
And in the nest of social insects, if we take Melifera's bee nest as an example, when there is a shortage of food(in the active season), larvae are first thrown out, then the uterus is limited in nutrition and stops oviposition, then I haven't read anywhere on what principle food is distributed, but in the end the uterus and several dozen bees die.
So the question is, these few dozens, how did they end up "at the end of the road"?
Whether it's just randomness or purposeful selection...

Maybe the point here is that you can still do without a uterus: you can still grow substitutes from larvae that will give birth to males, mate with them and continue the growth of the family, or even working individuals, as far as I understand, sometimes (maybe not in all species) can gain fertility, but here without workers, with only one uterus , it will be difficult to revive the family. Maybe that's what it's all about. But still, I was initially interested in whether there are so-called "ruling" ants among the workers, that is, those who "direct" the work - that is, direct other workers to collect food from new sources, mobilize them for construction, and so on, and those who do not have such functions? And, as a consequence, will the community try to keep some people first and others not? After all, this is also one of the criteria for hierarchy in humans.

Chromocenter
You are again humanizing ants, because first of all, an anthill is almost a single organism, unlike human society, each individual in an anthill does not have self-sufficiency.And the" command " here seems to be not some individuals but the surrounding circumstances.
The fact is that if ants are studied in this regard, then there is no access to publications, and with bees it is easier. So, in bees, the "principle of incompleteness" in the work performed is widely known. For example, a bee may begin to seal the larva, and then, halfway through, it will pick up and crawl to tamp down the pollen. And another bee at this time will take on the larva. In general, if you follow a single bee, you get the impression of randomness, but in general the family works smoothly.

Yes, among ants, as well as among bees, there are scouts, there are guards, in general, there is a division of labor, but there are certainly no privileges, for example, for scouts over guards. Although it seems to be discovered that bees are "born" as scouts, which means that not all bees are absolutely equal.
My question above was just in the sense that at the end a small group of worker bees remains with the uterus. So, these few bees are not the most "privileged" individuals, or it is they who were left by chance?

Chromocenter
You are again humanizing ants, because first of all, an anthill is almost a single organism, unlike human society, each individual in an anthill does not have self-sufficiency.And the" command " here seems to be not some individuals but the surrounding circumstances.

Absolutely true. No need for anthropomorphism, they are completely different. And they really act depending on the circumstances. In general, communication questions in social insects are far from being answered, you can't ask them what they think.

To the guest: "nature tells us blatant lies as far as it can" (Darwin)
I didn't try to heal the ants, but rather the opposite. I just thought that maybe in such a complex system as a nest of social insects, there may be organizing factors not just external, but also internal, i.e., working individuals capable of mobilizing others with all the consequences that follow from this. The fact that an anthill is closer to a single organism than human society, in my opinion, does not prevent this in any way: after all, in our body there are cells with similar functions.

 
There are also paper books in various online stores, but they are all popular, there are no specialized publications, it is clear why, they are unlike beekeeping supplements. they don't matter....

Ha, do you think there are a lot of scientific books on bees? In general, of course, you need to look at articles, ants are quite popular.

Books on bees are more accessible, if you want, you can find a lot of textbooks, popular science and special books about honeybees in various bookstores in the city. About ants, not to mention social wasps - there is nothing on sale, and on the web the choice of Russian-language literature is very small, especially on wasps.

About the scouts, what I was looking for, so far I have not found
I have several very different books at home, there are textbooks, and popular, and applied nature like "Practical beekeeping", "Carpathian bees". And where I read it, I'll have to look again.
Interestingly, the textbooks either do not say anything at all about how the division of flight bees into scouts and collectors goes, or they are rather vague.
For example:
"Biology of the bee family" F. A. Lavrekhin, S. V. Pankova
"Experienced older collectors become scouts"

"Biology of the honey bee" V. I. Lebedev, N. G. Bilash"
Scout bees are particularly active worker bees..... After stopping the release of nectar, the collector bees return to the hive, and sit quietly on the combs waiting for a new signal about the presence of food. Scout bees continue to fly intensively, examining the area surrounding the apiary for the presence of..."

In general, if there is anything in the first quote, then in the last book there is practically nothing, and in two more textbooks about scouts only rare mentions. You also need to pay attention to the fact that scouts are looking not only for food, but also when swarming - a place for a nest. These are the same scouts who were previously looking for food, probably not, because young bees usually fly with the swarm. How does a bee decide whether to fly to find a hive or not?

"if you want, you can find a lot of textbooks in various bookstores in the city"
In what city? I'm actually going to be from the Middle East...
In general, of course, thank you. Maybe somewhere on the Internet from this something is. I'll Google it.

Well, I actually said that. Although, to be specific, in my city there are no longer those very shops!! Everything is already there, old books have disappeared somewhere, new ones-this is a separate non-entomological topic. Only the Internet remains, on the site http://entomology.narod.ru/ there is a category where you can exchange/buy literature.

So I don't know, but you probably also have little sense to look in the city, except to order, but from the network it will usually be cheaper, and the choice is greater.

Santa Claus, do you happen to know if the reaper ants have a" special "caste of" grinders " - for which the functions of protection, so to speak, are already secondary? And then distract the soldiers from the service...

Watchmen ants become already at the end of their lives.
There is no separate caste of grinders here.
It is mainly the largest ants that grind grains (they can also be medium-sized if there are no giants).

The life cycle of ants consists of three main stages:
1-brood care
2-food search (foraging)
3-home security

Small ants are delayed in this "development", i.e. most of their lives are engaged in caring for larvae and eggs, and in the end they go out foraging. Large companies, on the contrary, quickly move from the 1st stage to the 2nd...

What then is the meaning of the concept of "caste"? In the speed of changing different specialties? And another thing: ants can be engaged in grain grinding at any stage, as long as the size fits?

The point is that each caste is "sharpened" for some specific function, but this does not prevent them from engaging in unusual activities in the event of force majeure. This is also true in other social insects. In bumblebees, for example, the very first workers are very small. At first, they are engaged in foraging and intra-nest activities, and then, when larger individuals come out, they remain in the nest. However, if the number of large foragers is less than necessary for food, then small ones may well go for food, although their efficiency will be much less.

Prynyp is clear, so it turns out that bumblebees also have some kind of caste? (it still seems to me that it is secondary, so to speak - that is, they are small not because they are intended for working in the nest, but because there is not enough food at the beginning) In ants, this direction - that is, the specialization of individuals based on the influence of environmental conditions during growth-went the farthest? It's an interesting thing, if that's the case...

Yes, of course they are small because the feed is very small at first. Bumblebees, like honey bees, are not exactly castes, but polyethics (I wrote about this above in the topic). In some ants, the division is stronger, even to the point of morphology. Such a device in termites is very interesting. There, "castes" generally molt into each other.

"In some ants, the division is stronger, even to the point of morphology. @
The essence of these differences is probably in allometric growth?

Is it possible to apply the term "allometric growth" to insects with complete transformation? But the essence is similar-hypertrophied jaws, abdomen, etc.

"Is it possible to apply the term 'allometric growth' to insects with complete transformation?"
Maybe not strictly speaking: but some ants clearly have a tendency: the larger it is, the larger the relative size of its head. All of this has progenitors at the larval stage, well, they may receive the appropriate signals in the appropriate "doses".

Has anyone ever heard that ants of the same family can have a hierarchy? That is, among the whole mass of working individuals, there are those who are, so to speak, privileged and receive, for example, more food than the rest, and in the event of unfavorable conditions tend to preserve them first of all? On the one hand, among the ants there are individuals of different "specialties" and it is logical to assume that the creation of each of them takes a different amount of costs, but on the other hand, working individuals do not reproduce, and therefore they have no personal interests, that is, the hierarchy is not particularly necessary. But what is it really? Someone, maybe, raspolagaet any information?

What you're talking about isn't exactly a hierarchy. Ants don't have that. However, the hierarchy between worker individuals itself exists in families of ants of all species. For example, the hierarchy between foragers (hunters), as well as the hierarchy of intra-nest workers and the process of transition from the intra-nest state to the more "prestigious" forager state is well described for the Formica rufa group. By the way, the "personal interests" of individual individuals are also very obvious: this phenomenon is known, but it cannot be explained by the existing adaptionist paradigm, it simply does not fit into it. By the way, including on the basis of this "personal interest" in ants, the global adaptionism of living things in nature has recently been very seriously questioned.

Here you probably forgot that an active nest of social insects almost always contains adult insects and larvae from food consumers. Hierarchy in the sense that humans have it, so even monkeys don't have it:)

It is the hierarchy in the form that people have in any social group of animals.

Chromocenter
Yes, among ants, as well as among bees, there are scouts, there are guards, in general, there is a division of labor, but there are probably no privileges, for example, for scouts over guards.

It depends on what is considered under "privileges"

 
There are also paper books in various online stores, but they are all popular, there are no specialized publications, it is clear why, they are unlike beekeeping supplements. they don't matter....

There is. For example, "Organization of communities in ants", by A. A. Zakharov

This post was edited by polecat_rus - 06/14/2006 18: 14

"By the way, including on the basis of this 'personal interest' in ants, the global adaptionism of living things in nature has recently been very seriously questioned."
In my opinion, hastily. Local - yes, it is not always fulfilled, because the interests of the individual and the interests of the group as a whole may differ. When the interests of an individual prevail, the groups are interesting, meaning that its overall fitness may be compromised. But the general one is hardly. The interests of workers can be explained evolutionarily simply: every organism wants to live by its very existence. If this is not necessary or harmful to anyone (like, for example, the life of agave after it has faded), then as a result of selection, those individuals who "do not want to live"will remain. But this is only if they really interfere with something (agave, for example, will create competition for its offspring), if not, then there will be nothing to select for and the individuals will remain alive. It's the same with worker ants: everyone has "ambitions" because he is alive and if they do not significantly interfere with the life of the anthill, then they will remain. So it is hasty to oppose such conclusions as "it cannot be explained by the existing adaptionist paradigm, it simply does not fit into it" - in evolution, if something exists, it does not always make sense, it can also be a "blank" and simply do not interfere with anything.
"It is the hierarchy in the form that people have in any social group of animals."
Why not? After all, the human community: "population-class" - that is, it is a population consisting of families located at different "levels", while the ant - "family-caste" - that is, consisting of one family, within which individuals are not the same in functions. And what does "more privileged" castes mean? This is because with a "humanized" approach, everything looks as if the ant is "growing in position", this can also mean its individual development (like an embryo).
By privileges, I meant the consumption of colony resources in the first place.

polecat_rus

If you define the hierarchy as a certain gradation in terms of the number and availability of privileges, and list them, then you can see such a hierarchy in ants as in higher primates, let's say
Privileges can be as follows:
1) Access to shared food(for ants, priority in tropholaxis, for example).
2) A high level of protection of the selected group of individuals against aggression or certain environmental factors(for example, whether there are working individuals in the winter bee club that never appear on the outside of the club, if there are any, then they are granted a privilege.
3)Breeding privileges (it doesn't seem to matter for social insects, but if the queen bee is lost, not all bees are tinder-free, but only a certain group)
4) territorial privileges.
etc.

So, in my opinion, the main difference between the hierarchy of "human" and "animal" is not in the type of privileges, but in the way they are acquired. A person aspires to privilege, but at the same time does not necessarily receive it, and in other social groups it is a consequence of ontogenesis, that is, everything is predetermined.

It's a pity that the book is not available online in electronic form. I'll try to buy a paper one by mail.

Whether everything is pre-defined or not is, apparently, an open question: the inclination, of course, is there, but whether he gets a "privilege"or not, it may not be determined from birth. I don't know. For people, the picture is also similar: no matter what anyone says, people are not born with equal opportunities to study, get a job, and so on. Just in other mammals, the inheritance of privileges in general almost does not take place: the place of the leader of the pack must still be earned, regardless of who you were born from. However, this, firstly, may lead the topic in a completely wrong direction, and secondly, it does not apply directly to it.
Thank you for classifying privileges.

About the privileges, not at all, it was just my idea of them.
In general, it would be very interesting to read the extended definition of "personal self-interest" in the Meravians, what is it and on the basis of what such a conclusion was made, at least one example of its manifestation?

If there is a personal interest, then if it is an extension of the family, then such interests can disorganize the colony. This is again observed in the bee family, when the uterus disappears, individuals appear that lay eggs. If in this way they realize their interest, and there are not many such individuals, then we can assume that with a live uterus, when the desire for egg production in these individuals was suppressed, they were still the worst workers. It is the same in the accumulation of food. Then there should be at least a small number of them. This seems to be indirectly confirmed for polistov, they have a tendency to mate and lay eggs, and in" working " females, in general, there may be an obvious morphological, and even physiological one? at least there is no division into uterus and workers, so such nests are small in number.

polecat_rus
...for example, whether there are workers in the winter bee club that never appear on the outside of the club, if there are any, then they are granted a privilege.

As far as I know, there is no such thing. I.e. bees that are closer to the center of the club just climb out and replace the outer individuals so that they do not freeze. The club is always in a dynamic state.

I join Bolivar and Sealor. It would be interesting to ask that when the queen dies or the colony grows, are there any privileges for any castes or groups in the sense of replacing the female? After all, in theory, this piece is oh so delicious. And the place should be taken by the "most worthy". And how will they "choose" it? Quarrel, for "humanization", it just seems that evolutionarily some kind of struggle for this place (s) can be justified. Although, it may very well be that there is no-after all, and the members of the same nest are close relatives (also not always, however), there is not much to choose from.

In the event of the death of the female, bumblebees usually begin to carry one of the largest foragers. True, their caste differences are very smoothed out, if not absent altogether.

As far as I remember from what I read about bumblebees, they have small individuals born at the beginning of the season, and then their size increases. And at the end of the season, some working individuals from the most recent and correspondingly the largest even try to get a wintering place. That is, they seem to be physiologically closest to the fertile female. Maybe that's what works? But in ants, caste distinctions are more complex...

OS hierarchy http://elementy.ru/news/430228 based on the difference in time spent at work. The lower the rank, the more you have to work. Don't people do that?
What do we have in common with wasps?

In general, this state of affairs is quite logical and justified. For os.

I may be late, but the name Kipyatkov doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere. I advise everyone to read his books, and especially "The world of social insects". And the need for this dispute will disappear in the future.

did Kipyatkov set out (discovered, conducted relevant experiments) everything in such a way that there is nothing to add???

We have read books and are familiar with Vladilen Yevgenyevich. Books are definitely worth reading for anyone interested in social insects. However, there is always something to add
Just remember the story of the bee dance, which was first published in the 1920s (von Frisch), and the discussion was actually closed only in the 90s (Michelsen).

well, there is a book, but there is no place to download it...