Sociality and the rate of molecular evolution

The molecular clock does not tick at a uniform rate in all taxa but maybe influenced by species characteristics. Eusocial species (those with reproductive division of labor) have been predicted to have faster rates of molecular evolution than their nonsocial relatives because of greatly reduced effective population size; if most individuals in a population are nonreproductive and only one or few queens produce all the offspring, then eusocial animals could have much lower effective population sizes than their solitary relatives, which should increase the rate of substitution of nearly neutral mutations. An earlier study reported faster rates in eusocial honeybees and vespid wasps but failed to correct for phylogenetic nonindependence or to distinguish between potential causes of rate variation. Because sociality has evolved independently in many different lineages, it is possible to conduct a more wide-ranging study to test the generality of the relationship. We have conducted a comparative analysis of 25 phylogenetically independent pairs of social lineages and their nonsocial relatives, including bees, wasps, ants, termites, shrimps, and mole rats, using a range of available DNA sequences (mitochondrial and nuclear DNA coding for proteins and RNAs, and nontranslated sequences). By including a wide range of social taxa, we were able to test whether there is a general influence of sociality on rates of molecular evolution and to test specific predictions of the hypothesis: (1) that social species have faster rates because they have reduced effective population sizes; (2) that mitochondrial genes would show a greater effect of sociality than nuclear genes; and (3) that rates of molecular evolution should be correlated with the degree of sociality. We find no consistent pattern in rates of molecular evolution between social and nonsocial lineages and no evidence that mitochondrial genes show faster rates in social taxa. However, we show that the most highly eusocial Hymenoptera do have faster rates than their nonsocial relatives. We also find that social parasites (that utilize the workers from related species to produce their own offspring) have faster rates than their social relatives, which is consistent with an effect of lower effective population size on rate of molecular evolution. Our results illustrate the importance of allowing for phylogenetic nonindependence when conducting investigations of determinants of variation in rate of molecular evolution.

The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: Spider societies as a test case

Many models have been advanced to suggest how different expressions of sociality have evolved and are maintained. However these models ignore the function of groups for the particular species in question. Here we present a new perspective on sociality where the function of the group takes a central role. We argue that sociality may have primarily a reproductive, protective, or foraging function, depending on whether it enhances the reproductive, protective or foraging aspect of the animal's life (sociality may serve a mixture of these functions). Different functions can potentially cause the development of the same social behaviour. By identifying which function influences a particular social behaviour we can determine how that social behaviour will change with changing conditions, and which models are most pertinent. To test our approach we examined spider sociality, which has often been seen as the poor cousin to insect sociality. By using our approach we found that the group characteristics of eusocial insects is largely governed by the reproductive function of their groups, while the group characteristics of social spiders is largely governed by the foraging function of the group. This means that models relevant to insects may not be relevant to spiders. It also explains why eusocial insects have developed a strict caste system while spider societies are more egalitarian. We also used our approach to explain the differences between different types of spider groups. For example, differences in the characteristics of colonial and kleptoparasitic groups can be explained by differences in foraging methods, while differences between colonial and cooperative spiders can be explained by the role of the reproductive function in the formation of cooperative spider groups. Although the interactions within cooperative spider colonies are largely those of a foraging society, demographic traits and colony dynamics are strongly influenced by the reproductive function. We argue that functional explanations help to understand the social structure of spider groups and therefore the evolutionary potential for speciation in social spiders.

Levinas and the defination of philosophy: An ethical approach

Emmanuel Levinas’ thought seems to be strictly neither rational, phenomenological nor ontological, and it thus intentionally exposes itself to the asking of the question ‘why call it philosophy at all’? While we may have trouble containing Levinas’ thought within our traditional philosophical boundaries, I argue that this gives us no reason to exclude him from philosophy proper as a mere poser, but rather provides the occasion for reflection on just what it means, in an ethical manner, to call something ‘philosophical’. Instead of asking whether or not philosophy can ‘contain’ Levinas’ thought, I contend that it would be more ethical to instead re-phrase the question in terms of ‘sociality’. When we do this, I argue, we can indeed justifiably call Levinas’ thought philosophy.