{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023168908819133034, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.762626262626263, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Resolving the evolution of sterile worker castes: a window on the advantages and disadvantages of monogamy

Many social Hymenoptera species have morphologically sterile worker castes. It is proposed that the evolutionary routes to this obligate sterility must pass through a ‘monogamy window’, because inclusive fitness favours individuals retaining their reproductive totipotency unless they can rear full siblings. Simulated evolution of sterility, however, finds that ‘point of view’ is critically important. Monogamy is facilitating if sterility is expressed altruistically (i.e. workers defer reproduction to queens), but if sterility results from manipulation by mothers or siblings, monogamy may have no effect or lessen the likelihood of sterility. Overall, the model and data from facultatively eusocial bees suggest that eusociality and sterility are more likely to originate through manipulation than by altruism, casting doubt on a mandatory role for monogamy. Simple kin selection paradigms, such as Hamilton's rule, can also fail to account for significant evolutionary dynamics created by factors, such as population structure, group-level effects or non-random mating patterns. The easy remedy is to always validate apparently insightful predictions from Hamiltonian equations with life-history appropriate genetic models.