Biological Theory

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 240–246 | Cite as

Understanding Colonial Traits Using Symbiosis Research and Ecosystem Ecology

  • Frédéric Bouchard


E. O. Wilson (1974: 54) describes the problem that social organisms pose: “On what bases do we distinguish the extremely modified members of an invertebrate colony from the organs of a metazoan animal?” This framing of the issue has inspired many to look more closely at how groups of organisms form and behave as emergent individuals. The possible existence of “superorganisms” test our best intuitions about what can count and act as genuine biological individuals and how we should study them. As we will discuss, colonies of certain organisms display many of the properties that we usually reserve only to individual organisms. Although there is good reason to believe that many social insects form genuine emergent biological individuals, the conclusion offered here is of a slightly different sort. I will argue that to understand some social insects’ interactions and the emergent traits they give rise to, it may be helpful to shift our understanding from a community-level approach to an ecosystem-level approach. I will argue that viewing certain insect colonies (termites) as parts of ecosystems allows us to better understand some of the adaptations that have emerged from their evolution.


adaptation biological individuality colony ecology emergence social insects 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aanen DK, Eggleton P, Rouland-Lefevre C, Guldberg-Froslev T, Rosendahl S, Boomsma JJ (2002) The evolution of fungus-growing termites and their mutualistic fungal symbionts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 14887–14892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmadjian V, Jacobs J (1983) Algal-fungal relationships in lichens: Recognition, synthesis, and development. In: Symbiosis (Goff LJ, ed), 147–172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bouchard F (2004) Evolution, Fitness and the Struggle for Persistence. PhD thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
  4. Bouchard F (2008) Causal processes, fitness, and the differential persistence of lineages. Philosophy of Science 75: 560–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouchard F (in press) How ecosystem evolution strengthens the case for functional pluralism. In: Functions: Selection and Mechanism (Huneman P, ed), Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Brandon RN (1990) Adaptation and Environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper WS (1984) Expected time to extinction and the concept of fundamental fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 603–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dangerfield J, McCarthy T, Ellery W (1998) The mound-building termite Macrotermes michaelseni as an ecosystem engineer. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goff L (1982) Symbiosis and parasitism: Another viewpoint. BioScience 32: 255–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gould SJ, Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B 205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gould SJ, Lloyd EA (1999) Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: How shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96: 11904–11909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton A, Smith N, Haber M (2009) Social insects and the individuality thesis: Cohesion and the colony as a selectable individual. In: Organization of Insect Societies: From Genome to Sociocomplexity (Gadau J, Fewell J, ed), 572–589. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Horvath CD (1997) Some questions about identifying Individuals: Failed intuitions about organisms and species. Philosophy of Science 64: 654–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (2008) The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  15. Janzen D (1977) What are dandelions and aphids? American Naturalist 111: 586–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewin R (1982) Symbiosis and parasitism: Definitions and evaluations. BioScience 32: 254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lüscher M (1961) Air conditioned termite nests. Scientific American 205(1): 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mabee PM, Ashburner M, Cronk Q, Gkoutos GV, Haendel M, Segerdell E, Mungall C, Westerfield M (2007) Phenotype ontologies: The bridge between genomics and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22: 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McShea DW, Venit E (2000) What is a part? In: The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology (Wagner GP, ed), 259–284. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. McShea DW, Venit E (2002) Testing for bias in the evolution of coloniality: A demonstration in cyclostome bryosoans. Paleobiology 28: 308–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Odenbaugh J (2007) Seeing the forest and the trees: Realism about communities and ecosystems. Philosophy of Science 74: 628–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paracer S, Ahmadjian V (2000) Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rosenberg A, Bouchard F (2009) Fitness. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), (Zalta EN, ed), URL:
  24. Saffo MB (1996) Evolution of Symbiosis. BioScience 46: 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanders W (2001) Lichens: The interface between mycology and plant morphology. Bioscience 51: 1025–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sapp J (1994) Evolution by Association: A History of Symbiosis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sober E (2001) The two faces of fitness. In: Thinking About Evolution: Historical, Philosophical, and Political Perspectives (Singh RS, Costas B, Paul DB, Beatty J, eds), 309–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Swenson W, Wilson DS, Elias R (2000) Artificial ecosystem selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97: 9110–9114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thoday JM (1953) Components of fitness. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 7: 96–113.Google Scholar
  30. Turner JS (2000) The Extended Organism: The Physiology of Animal-built Structures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Turner JS (2004) Extended phenotypes and extended organisms. Biology and Philosophy 19: 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson DS, Sober E (1989) Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoretical Biology 136: 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson EO (1971) The Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson EO (1974) The perfect societies. Science 184: 54–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson J (2007) Biological Individuality: The Identity and Persistence of Living Entities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson RA (2007) The biological notion of individual. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), (Zalta EN, ed), URL:

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations