Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Sep 22;269(1503):1871–1877. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2061

Extreme genetic differences between queens and workers in hybridizing Pogonomyrmex harvester ants.

Sara Helms Cahan 1, Joel D Parker 1, Steven W Rissing 1, Robert A Johnson 1, Tatjana S Polony 1, Michael D Weiser 1, Deborah R Smith 1
PMCID: PMC1691112  PMID: 12350248

Abstract

The process of reproductive caste determination in eusocial insect colonies is generally understood to be mediated by environmental, rather than genetic factors. We present data demonstrating unexpected genetic differences between reproductive castes in a variant of the rough harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex rugosus var. fuscatus. Across multiple loci, queens were consistently more homozygous than expected, while workers were more heterozygous. Adult colony queens were divided into two highly divergent genetic groups, indicating the presence of two cryptic species, rather than a single population. The observed genetic differences between castes reflect differential representation of heterospecific and conspecific patrilines in these offspring groups. All workers were hybrids; by contrast, winged queens were nearly all pure-species. The complete lack of pure-species workers indicates a loss of worker potential in pure-species female offspring. Hybrids appear to be bipotential, but do not normally develop into reproductives because they are displaced by pure-species females in the reproductive pool. Genetic differences between reproductive castes are expected to be rare in non-hybridizing populations, but within hybrid zones they may be evolutionarily stable and thus much more likely to occur.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (261.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cole BJ, Wiernasz DC. The selective advantage of low relatedness . Science. 1999 Aug 6;285(5429):891–893. doi: 10.1126/science.285.5429.891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):17–52. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hung A. C., Vinson S. B. Interspecific hybridization and caste specificity of protein in fire ant. Science. 1977 Jun 24;196(4297):1458–1460. doi: 10.1126/science.196.4297.1458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kerr W E. Genetic Determination of Castes in the Genus Melipona. Genetics. 1950 Mar;35(2):143–152. doi: 10.1093/genetics/35.2.143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Leibowitz A. H. Selection for hybrid inviability through kin selection. J Theor Biol. 1994 Sep 21;170(2):163–174. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1994.1176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Parker J. D., Hedrick P. W. Gene flow and selection balance in haplodiploid social insects. Heredity (Edinb) 2000 Dec;85(Pt 6):530–538. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.2000.00778.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Sundström L., Boomsma J. J. Reproductive alliances and posthumous fitness enhancement in male ants. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Jul 22;267(1451):1439–1444. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Tilley CA, Oldroyd BP. Unequal subfamily proportions among honey bee queen and worker brood. Anim Behav. 1997 Dec;54(6):1483–1490. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES