Proceedings: Animal Sciences

, Volume 94, Issue 6, pp 587–621 | Cite as

Kin recognition in social insects and other animals—A review of recent findings and a consideration of their relevance for the theory of kin selection

  • Raghavendra Gadagkar


Kin selection is a widely invoked mechanism to explain the origin and evolution of social behaviour in animals. Proponents of the theory of kin selection place great emphasis on the correlation between asymmetries in genetic relatedness created by haplodiploidy and the multiple origins of eusociality in the order Hymenoptera. The fact that a female is more closely related genetically to her full sister than to her daughters makes it more profitable for a Hymenopteran female, in terms of inclusive fitness, to raise full sisters rather than daughters or full siblings with a female biased sex ratio rather than offspring. This is sometimes referred to as the haplodiploidy hypothesis. In reality however, genetic relatedness between workers in social insect colonies and the reproductive brood they rear is far below 0·75, the value expected for full sisters, often below 0·5 the value expected between mother and daughter and, not uncommonly, approaching zero. Such values are on account of queen turnover, multiple mating by queens or polygyny. This situation raises doubts regarding the haplodiploidy hypothesis unless workers can discriminate between full and half sisters and preferentially direct their altruism towards their full sisters only. This would still mean an effective coefficient of genetic relatedness of 0·75 between altruist and recipient. For this to be possible however, workers should be able to recognise their full sisters inspite of growing up with and being habituated to an assortment of full sisters, half sisters and perhaps other even less related individuals. Even outside the Hymenoptera, social animals may find themselves growing up together in the company of individuals of varying degrees of relatedness. An ability to tell apart the more and less related individuals under such circumstances should favour kin selection.

Much effort is now going into assessing the abilities of animals to discriminate between kin and non kin. In every case studied carefully so far, animals appear to be capable of recognising their kin. Ants, wasps, sweat bees, honey bees, frogs, toads, mice, rats, voles, squirrels, monkeys and even humans appear to be able to recognise their kin in one circumstance or another. An ability to recognize true genetic relatedness requires genetically specified recognition labels and these must therefore be present. Recent findings of the role of the histocompatibility system provides some clues to the possible nature of recognition labels. An ability to recognise full sisters for example, inspite of being habituated to full and half sisters requires not merely genetically specified labels but also recognition templates which are based on the characteristics of the individual animals making the recognition and not templates based on all animals one grows up with. Some animals such as honey bees, tadpoles and ground squirrels appear to have such templates but others such as sweat bees and some mice appear not to. It is entirely possible that our inability to devise natural enough assays for recognition prevents us from understanding the full potential of the kin recognition abilities of many animal species. In any case, genetically specified labels and self based templates should greatly facilitate the evolution of social behaviour by kin selection.


Genetic relatedness kin recognition kin selection hymenoptera haplodiploidy evolution of social behaviour 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alber M, Jordan R, Ruttner F and Ruttner H 1955 Von der Paarung der Honigbiene;Z. Bienenforsch. 3 1–28Google Scholar
  2. Alexander R D and Borgia G 1978 Group selection, altruism and the levels of organization of life;Annu. Rev. Ecoi Syst. 9 449–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen J L, Schulze-Kellman K and Gamboa G J 1982 Clumping patterns during over wintering in the paper wasp,Polistes exclamans: Effects of Relatedness;J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 55 97–100Google Scholar
  4. Barrows E M, Bell W J and Michener C D 1975 Individual odour differences and their social functions in insects;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA72 2824–2828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateson P P G 1980 Optimal outbreeding and the development of sexual preferences in Japanese quail;Z. Tierpsychol. 53 231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp G K, Yamazaki K and Boyse E A 1985 The chemosensory recognition of genetic individuality;Sci. Am. 253 (1) 66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beecher I M and Beecher M D 1983 Sibling recognition in bank swallows (Riparia riparia);Z. Tierpsychol. 62 145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beecher M D, Beecher I M and Hahn S 1981a Parent offspring recognition in bank swallows (Riparia riparia) II: Development and acoustic basis;Anim. Behav. 29 95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beecher M D, Beecher I M and Lumpin S 1981b Parent offspring recognition in bank swallows (Riparia riparia) I: Natural History;Anim. Behav. 29 86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blaustein A R 1983 Kin recognition mechanisms: Phenotypic matching or recognition alleles?:Am. Nat. 121 749–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blaustein A R and O’Hara R K 1981 Genetic control for sibling recognition?Nature (London) 290 246–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blaustein A R and O’Hara R K 1982 Kin recognition in Rana cascade tadpoles: maternal and paternal effects;Anim. Behav. 30 1151–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blaustein A R, O’Hara R K and Olson D H 1984 Kin preference behaviour is present after metamorphosis inRana cascadae frogs;Anim. Behav. 32 445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boch R and Morse R A 1979 Individual recognition of queensby honey bee swarms;Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 72 51–53Google Scholar
  15. Bornais K M, Larch C M, Gamboa G J and Daily R B 1983 Nestmate discrimination among laboratory over wintered foundresses of the paper wasp,Polistes fuscatus (Hymenoptera; Vespidae);Can. Entomol. 115 655–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Breed M D 1981 Individual recognition and learning of queen odours by worker honey bees;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78 2635–2637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Breed M D 1983 Nestmate recognition in honey bees;Anim. Behav. 31 86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Breed M D and Bennett B 1986 Kin recognition in highly eusocial insects; inKin recognition in animals (eds) D J C Fletcher and C D Michener (New York: John Wiley and Sons) (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Breed M D, Butler L and Stiller T M 1985 Kin discrimination by worker honey bees in genetically mixed groups;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82 3058–3061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Buckle G R and Green berg L 1981 Nestmate recognition in sweat bees (Lasioglossum zephyrum): Does an individual recognize its own odour or only odours of its nestmates:Anim. Behav. 29 802–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cammaerts M C, Evershed R P and Morgan E D 1981 Comparative study of the mandibular gland secretion of four species of Myrmica ants;J. Insect Physiol. 27 225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carlin N F and Holldobler B 1983 Nestmate and kin recognition in interspecific mixed colonies of ants;Science 222 1027–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carter-Saltzman L and Scarr-Salapatek S 1975 Blood group, behavioural and morphological differences among dizygotic twins;Soc. Biol. 22 372–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Charnov E L 1978 Sex ratio selection in eusocial Hymenoptera;Am. Nat. 112 317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cole B J 1983 Multiple mating and the evolution of social behaviour in the Hymenoptera;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12 191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Coopersmith R and Leon M 1984 Enhanced neural response to familiar olfactory cues;Science 225 849–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Craig R 1979 Parental manipulation, kin selection, and the evolution of altruism;Evolution 33 319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Craig R and Crozier R H 1979 Relatedness in the polygynous antMyrmecia pilosula;Evolution 33 335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Crozier R H 1973 Apparent differential selection at an isozyme locus between queens and workers of the antAphaenagaster rudis;Genetics 73 313–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Crozier R H 1986 Genetic aspects of kin recognition: Concepts, models and synthesis; inKin Recognition in animals, (eds) D J C Fletcher and C D Michener (New York: John Wiley and Sons) (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Crozier R H and Bruckner D 1981 Sperm clumping and the population genetics of Hymenoptera;Am. Nat. 117 561–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Crozier R H and Dix M W 1979 Analysis of two genetic models for the innate components of colony odour in social Hymenoptera;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 4 217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Crozier R H, Pamilo P and Crozier Y C 1984 Relatedness and microgeographic genetic variation inRhytidoponera mayri, an Australian arid-zone ant;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 15 143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dawkins R 1976The selfish gene (Oxford Univ. Press)Google Scholar
  35. Fredrickson W T and Sackett G P 1984 Kin preferences in primates (Macaca nemestrina): Relatedness or Familiarity?J. Comp. Psychol. 98 29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Freeman W J 1981 A Physiological hypothesis of perception:Perspect Biol. Med. 24 561–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Gadagkar R 1985 Evolution of insect sociality—A review of some attempts to test modern theories;Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Anim. Sci.)94 309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gamboa G J 1978 Intraspecific defence: Advantage of social cooperation among paper wasp foundresses;Science 199 1463–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gamboa G J, Reeve H K, Ferguson I D and Wacker T L 1985 Nestmate recognition in social wasps: The origin and acquisition of recognition odours;Anim. Behav. (in press)Google Scholar
  40. Gamboa G J, Reeve H K and Pfennig D W 1985 The evolution and ontogeny of nestmate recognition in social wasps;Annu. Rev. Entomol. (in press)Google Scholar
  41. Gavish L, Hafman J E and Getz L L 1984 Sibling recognition in the prairie voleMicrotus ochrogaster;Anim. Behav. 32 362–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Getz W M 1981 Genetically based kin recognition systems;J. Theor. Biol. 92 209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Getz W M 1982 An analysis of learned kin recognition in Hymenoptera;J. Theor. Biol. 99 585–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Getz W M, Bruckner D and Parisian T R 1982 Kin structure and the swarming behaviour of the honey beeApis mellifera;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10 265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Getz W M and Smith K B 1983 Genetic kin recognition: honey bees discriminate between full and half sisters;Nature 302 147–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grau H J 1982 Kin recognition in white-footed deer mice (Peromyscus teucopus);Anim. Behav. 30 497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greenberg L 1979 Genetic component of bee odour in kin recognition;Science 206 1095–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hamilton W D 1964a The genetical evolution of social behaviour I;J. Theor. Biol. 7 1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hamilton W D 1964b The genetical evolution of social behaviour II;J. Theor. Biol. 7 17–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hamilton W D 1972 Altruism and related phenomena mainly in social insects;Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3 193–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hamilton W D 1985 Discriminating nepotism: expectable, common, overlooked; inKin recognition in animals (eds) D J C Fletcher and C D Michener (New York: John Wiley and Sons) (in press)Google Scholar
  52. Hayashi S and Kimura T 1983 Degree of kinship as a factor regulating preferences among conspecifics in mice;Anim. Behav. 31 81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hepper P G 1983 Sibling recognition in the rat;Anim. Behav. 31 1177–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Holldobler B and Michener C D 1980 Mechanisms of identification and discrimination in social Hymenoptera; inEvolution of social behaviour. Hypothesis and Empirical tests (ed.) Hubert Markl (Dahlem Konferenzen 1980) (Weinheim: Verlag Chemie GmbH) pp. 35–58Google Scholar
  55. Holmes H B 1974 Patterns of sperm competition inNasonia vitripennis;Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 16 789–795PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Holmes W G 1984 Ontogeny of dam-young recognition in captive Beldings’ ground squirrels (Spermophilus beldingi);J. Comp. Psychol. 98 246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Holmes W G and Sherman P W 1982 The ontogeny of kin recognition in two species of ground squirrels;Am. Zool. 22 491–517Google Scholar
  58. Holmes W G and Sherman P W 1983 Kin recognition in animalsAm. Sci. 71 46–55Google Scholar
  59. Jarvis J U M 1981 Eusociality in a mammal: Cooperative breeding in naked mole-rat colonies;Science 212 571–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jeanne R L 1972 Social Biology of the Neotropical waspMischocyttarus derewseni;Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harv. Univ. 144 63–150Google Scholar
  61. Jones J S and Partridge L 1983 Tissue rejection: The price of sexual acceptance;Nature (London) 304 484–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Joshi N V and Gadagkar R 1985 Evolution of sex ratios in social Hymenoptera: kin selection, local mate competition, polyandry and kin recognition;J. Genet. 64 41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jutsum A R, Saunders T S and Chernett J M 1979 Intraspecific aggression in the leaf-cutting antAcromyrmex octospinosus;Anim. Behav. 27 839–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kalmus H and Ribbands C R 1952 The origin of the odours by which honeybees distinguish their companions;Proc. R. Soc. B140 50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kareem A M and Barnard C J 1982 The importance of kinship and familiarity in social interactions between mice;Anim. Behav. 30 594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kerr W C, Zucchi R, Nakadaira J T and Butolo J E 1962 Reproduction in the social bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae);J.N.Y. Entomol. Soc. 70 265–276Google Scholar
  67. Klahn J E 1979 Philopatric and nonphilopatric foundress associations in the social waspPolistes fuscatus;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 5 417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Klahn J E and Gamboa G J 1983 Social wasps: Discrimination between kin and nonkin brood;Science 221 482–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kukuk P F, Breed M D, Sobti A and Bell W J 1977 The contributions of kinship and conditioning to nest recognition and colony member recognition in a primitively eusocial bee,Lasioglossum zephyrum (Hymenoptera: Halictidae);Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2 319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lacy R C and Sherman P W 1983 Kin recognition by phenotype matching;Am. Nat. 121 489–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Larch C M and Gamboa G J 1981 Investigation of mating preference for nestmates in the paper waspPolistes fuscatus (Hymenoptera: Yespidae);J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 54 811–814Google Scholar
  72. Lenington S 1983 Social preference for partners carrying ’Good genes’ in wild house mice;Anim. Behav. 31 325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lester L J and Selander R K 1981 Genetic reiatedness and the social organization ofPolistes colonies:Am. Nat. 117 147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Levine L, Rockwell R F and Grossfield J 1980 Sexual selection in mice V Reproductive competition between + /+ and +/tW5 males;Am. Nat. 116 150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lewontin R C 1974The genetic basis of evolutionary change (New York: Columbia Univ. Press) pp XIII + 346Google Scholar
  76. MacKenzie M M, McGrew W C and Chamove A S 1985 Social preferences in stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arctoides): Effects of companionship, kinship and rearing.Dev. Psychobiol. 18 115–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Metcalf R A and Whitt G S 1977a Intra-nest reiatedness in the social waspPolistes metricus A Genetic analysis;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2 339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Metcalf R A and Whitt G S 1977b Relative Inclusive Fitness in the social waspPolistes metricus;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2 353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Michener C D 1974The social behaviour of the bees, A comparative study; (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press) pp. XII + 404Google Scholar
  80. Mintzer A 1982 Nestmate recognition and incompatibility between colonies of the Acacia-AntPseudomyrmex ferruginea;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10 165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mintzer A and Vinson S B 1985 Kinship and incompatibility between colonies of the Acasia-AntPseudomyrmex ferruginea.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17 75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Noonan K M 1981 Individual Strategies of Inclusive-Fitness-Maximizing inPolistes fuscatus foundresses; inNatural selection and social behaviour (eds) R D Alexander and D W Tinkle (New York: Chiron Press Inc.) pp 18–44Google Scholar
  83. O’Hara R D and Blaustein A R 1981 An investigation of sibling recognition inRana cascadae tadpoles;Anim. Behav. 29 1121–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Orlove M J 1975 A model for kin selection not invoking coefficients of relationship;J. Theor. Biol. 49 289–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Page R E 1980 The evolution of multiple mating behaviour by honey bee queens (Apis mellifera L.);Genetics 96 263–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Page R E and Metcalf R A 1982 Multiple mating, sperm utilization and social evolution;Am. Nat. 119 263–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pakstis A, Scarr-salapatek S, Elston R C and Siervogel R 1972 Genetic Contributions to Morphological and Behavioural Similarities among Sibs and Dizygotic Twins: Linkages and Allelic Differences;Soc. Biol. 19 185–192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Pamilo P 1981 Genetic organization of Formica sanguinea populations;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9 45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Pamilo P 1982 Genetic population structure in polygynousFormica ants;Heredity 48 95–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pamilo P 1984 Genotypic correlation and regression in social groups: multiple alleles, multiple loci and subdivided populations;Genetics 107 307–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Pamilo P and Crozier R H 1982 Measuring genetic relatedness in natural populations: Methodology;Theor. Popul Biol. 21 171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pamilo P and Rosengren R 1984 Evolution of nesting strategies of ants: genetic evidence from different population types ofFormica ants;Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 21 331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Pamilo P and Varvio-Aho S 1979 Genetic structure of nests in the AntFormica sanguinea.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 6 91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Pearson B 1983 Intra-colonial relatedness amongst workers in a population of nests of the polygynous ant,Myrmica rubra Latreille;Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pfennig D W, Gamboa G J, Reeve H K, Shellman-Reeve J and Ferguson I D 1983a The mechanism of nestmate discrimination in social wasps (Polistes, Hymenoptera: Vespidae);Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13 299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Pfennig D W, Reeve H K and Shellman J S 1983b Learned component of nestmate discrimination in workers of a social wasp,Polistes fuscatus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae);Anim. Behav. 31 412–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Porter R H and Wyrick M 1979 Sibling recognition in spiny mice (Acomys cahirinus): influence of age and isolation;Anim. Behav. 27 761–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Porter R H, Matochik J A and Makin J W 1983 Evidence for phenotype matching in spiny mice (Acomys cahirinus);Anim. Behav. 31 978–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Post D C and Jeanne R L 1982 Recognition of former nestmates during colony founding by the social waspPolistes fuscatus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae);Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 11 283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Pratte M 1982 Relations anterieures et association de Fondation chezPolistes gallicus L.;Insectes Soc. 29 352–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Roitt I M 1980Essential Immunology (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications) pp XVI + 358Google Scholar
  102. Ross N M and Gamboa G J 1981 Nestmate discrimination in social wasps (Polistes metricus, Hymenoptera: Vespidae);Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9 163–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Russell M J, Mendelson T and Peeke H V S 1983 Mother’s identification of their infant’s odors;Ethol. Sociobiol. 4 29–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Ryan R E, Cornell T J and Gamboa G J 1985 Nestmate recognition in the Bald-faced Hornet,Dolichoveopula maculata (Hymenoptera: Vespidae);Z. Tierpsychol. 69 19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Shellman J S and Gamboa G J 1982 Nestmate discrimination in social wasps: The role of exposure to nest and nestmates (Polistes fuscatus, Hymenoptera: Vespidae);Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol 11 51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Shellman-Reeve J and Gamboa G J 1985 Male social wasps (Polistes fuscatus, Hymenoptera: Vespidae) recognise their male nestmates;Anim. Behav. 33 331–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sherman P W 1980The limits of ground squirrel nepotism; inSociobiology. Beyond Nature/Nurture? (eds) G W Barlow and J Silverberg (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press) pp 505–544Google Scholar
  108. Sherman P W and Holmes W G 1985 Kin recognition: issues and evidence; inExperimental Behavioural Ecology (eds) B Holldobler and M Lindauer (Stuttgart, New York: G Fischer Verlag) pp 437–460Google Scholar
  109. Smith B H 1983 Recognition of female kin by male bees through olfactory signals:Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80 4551–4553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Starr C K 1979 Origin and evolution of insect sociality. A review of modern theory; inSocial Insects, (ed.) H R Hermann (New York: Academic Press) Vol. 1, pp 35–79Google Scholar
  111. Starr C K 1984 Sperm competition, kinship and sociality in the Aculeate Hymenoptera; inSperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (ed) R L Smith (New York: Academic Press) pp 427–464Google Scholar
  112. Taber S 1955 Sperm distribution in the spermathecae of multiple mated queen honeybees;J. Econ. Entomol. 48 522–525Google Scholar
  113. Trivers R L and Hare H 1976 Haplodiploidy and the evolution of the social insects;Science 191 249–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Waldman B 1981 Sibling recognition in toad tadpoles: the role of experience;Z. Tierpsychol. 56 341–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Waldman B 1982 Sibling association among schooling toad tadpoles: field evidence and implications;Anim. Behav. 30 700–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Waldman B 1985 Sibling recognition in toad tadpoles: Are kinship labels transferred among individuals?Z. Tierpsychol. 68 41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Waldman B and Adler K 1979 Toad tadpoles associate preferentially with siblings;Nature (London) 282 611–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. West-Eberhard M J 1969 Social biology of polistine wasps;Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich,140 1–101Google Scholar
  119. West-Eberhard M J 1975 The evolution of social behaviour by kin selection;Q. Rev. Biol. 50 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. West-Eberhard M J 1978 Polygyny and the evolution of social behaviour in wasps;J Kans. Entomol. Soc. 51 832–856Google Scholar
  121. Wilkes A 1966 Sperm utilization following multiple insemination in the waspDahlbominus fuscipennis;Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 8 451–461Google Scholar
  122. Wilson E O 1963 Social modifications related to rareness in ant species;Evolution 17 249–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wilson E O 1971 The insect societies; (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press) pp X + 548Google Scholar
  124. Wilson E O 1975 Sociobiology (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press) pp IX + 697Google Scholar
  125. Wilson E O 1986 Kin recognition: A synopsis; inKin recognition in animals (eds) D J C Fletcher and C D Michener (New York: John Wiley and Sons) (in press)Google Scholar
  126. Woyke J 1963 What happens to diploid drone larvae in a honey bee colony;J. Apic. Res. 2 73–75Google Scholar
  127. Wu H M H, Holmes W G, Medina S R and Sackett G P 1980 Kin preference in infantMacaca nemstrina;Nature (London) 285 225–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Yamazaki K, Beauchamp G K, Bard J, Thomas L and Boyse E A 1982 Chemosensory recognition of phenotypes determined by the T1a and H-2K regions of chromosome 17 of the mouse;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79 7828–7831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Yamazaki K, Beauchamp G K, Wysocki C J, Bard J, Thomas L and Boyse E A 1983 Recognition of H-2 types in relation to the Blocking of Pregnancy in mice;Science 221 186–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Yamazaki K, Boyse E A, Mike V, Thaler H T, Mathieson B J, Abott J, Boyse J, Zayas Z A and Thomas L 1976 Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex:J. Exp. Med. 144 1324–1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raghavendra Gadagkar
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecological SciencesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations