Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 453–460 | Cite as

Kinship discrimination in queen rearing by honey bees (Apis mellifera)

  • P. Kirk Visscher


Apis mellifera workers are able to discriminate the degree of relatedness to themselves of larvae and to preferentially rear queens from related larvae. They employ cues of genetic, not environmental origin, and workers which have only experienced unrelated brood nonetheless prefer related (but novel) over unrelated (but familiar) larvae. Thus worker bees possess the sensory capabilities and behavioral responses that would enable them to maximize their individual inclusive fitness through nepotism in queen rearing.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams J, Rothman ED, Kerr WE, Paulino ZL (1977) Estimation of the number of sex alleles and queen matings from diploid male frequencies in a population of Apis mellifera. Genetics 86:583–596Google Scholar
  2. Breed MD, Velthuis HHW, Robinson GE (1985) Do worker honey bees discriminate among unrelated and related larval phenotypes? Ann Entomol Soc Am 77:737–739Google Scholar
  3. Contel EPB, Mestriner MA, Martins E (1977) Genetic control and developmental expression of malate dehydrogenase in Apis mellifera. Biochem Genet 15:859–876Google Scholar
  4. Getz WM, Brückner D, Parisian TR (1982) Kin structure and swarming behavior of the honey bee Apis mellifera. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:265–270Google Scholar
  5. Getz WM, Smith KB (1983) Genetic kin recognition: honey bees discriminate between full and half sisters. Nature [Lond] 302:147–148Google Scholar
  6. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behavior. J Theoret Biol 7:1–52Google Scholar
  7. Harbo JR, Szabo TI (1984) A comparison of instrumentally inseminated and naturally mated queens. J Apic Res 23:31–36Google Scholar
  8. Hölldobler B, Michener CD (1980) Mechanisms of identification and discrimination in social Hymenoptera. In: Markl H (ed) Evolution of social behavior: Hypotheses and empirical tests. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, FRG, pp 35–58Google Scholar
  9. Holmes WG, Sherman PW (1982) The ontogeny of kin recognition in two species of ground squirrels. Am Zool 22:491–517Google Scholar
  10. Holmes WG, Sherman PW (1983) Kin recognition in animals. Am Sci 71:46–55Google Scholar
  11. Laidlaw HH (1979) Contemporary queen rearing. Dadant and Sons, Hamilton, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  12. Laidlaw HH, Page RE (1984) Polyandry in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.): Sperm utilization and intracolony genetic relationships. Genetics 108:985–997Google Scholar
  13. Lehninger AL (1975) Biochemistry. Worth, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Martins E, Mestriner MA, Contel EPB (1977) Alcohol dehydrogenase polymorphisms in Apis mellifera. Biochem Genet 15:357–366Google Scholar
  15. Masson C, Arnold G (1984) Ontogeny, maturation, and plasticity of the olfactory system in the workerbee, J Insect Physiol 30:7–14Google Scholar
  16. Mestriner MA, Contel EPB (1972) The P-3 and EST loci in the honeybee Apis mellifera. Genetics 72:733–738Google Scholar
  17. Page RE Jr, Erickson EJ Jr (1984) Selective rearing of queens by worker honey bees: kin or nestmate recognition. Ann Entomol Soc Am 77:578–580Google Scholar
  18. Page RE Jr, Metcalf RA (1982) Multiple mating, sperm utilization, and social evolution. Am Nat 119:263–281Google Scholar
  19. Pamilo P, Crozier RH (1982) Measuring genetic relatedness in natural populations: methodology. Theor Popul Biol 21:171–193Google Scholar
  20. Sheppard WS, Berlocher SH (1984) Enzyme polymorphisms in Apis mellifera from Norway. J Apic Res 23:64–69Google Scholar
  21. Sherman PW, Holmes WG (1985) Kinship recognition: issues and evidence. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds) Experimental behavioral ecology and sociobiology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp 437–460Google Scholar
  22. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa, p 213Google Scholar
  23. Taber S III (1955) Sperm distribution in the spermathecae of multiple-mated queen honey bees. J Econ Entomol 48:522–525Google Scholar
  24. Taber S III (1961) Forceps designed for transferring honey bee eggs. J Econ Entomol 54:247–250Google Scholar
  25. Taber S III, Wendel J (1958) Concerning the number of times queen bees mate. J Econ Entomol 51:786–789Google Scholar
  26. Visscher PK (1985) Genetic structure and kinship discrimination in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. PhD Thesis Cornell University, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  27. Woyke J (1962) The hatchability of “lethal” eggs in a two sex allele fraternity of honeybees. J Apic Res 1:6–13Google Scholar
  28. Woyke J (1969) A method of rearing diploid drones in a honeybee colony. J Apic Res 8:65–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Kirk Visscher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations