8/12/2019 Pi is 0169534713002334

1/2

Smells like hive spiritThe Spirit of the Hive - The Mechanisms of Social Evolution by Robert E. Page, Jr., Harvard University Press, 2013.US$39.95/29.95/s36.00, hbk (xiv + 226 pp.), ISBN 978-0-674-07302-9

Ulrich R. Ernst

Research Group of Functional Genomics and Proteomics & Laboratory of Socioecology and Social Evolution, Department of

Biology, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 59, bus 2465, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

There is an abundant offer of academic

books on the topic of social insects

currently available, for example [13].

Among these, the new book by Robert E.

Page, titled The Spirit of the Hive, stands

out in its analysis of social evolution due to

its integration of seemingly disparate

topics, such as foraging preferences, sen-

sitivity to sugar, evolution of multiple

mating, and division of labour with task

specialisation. Page is not asking the traditional ecological

questions (for instance, kin selection is only mentioned

once simply to announce that itwillnot bediscussed at all

in this volume), nor does he use an overly theoretical

approach.Rather,he chooses to examine the innerworking

of a colony and the mechanisms that govern its organisa-

tion by studying the causes of individual behaviour.

He focuses on the honeybee, the most studied social

insect, to investigate how tens of thousands of individuals

in a colony can cooperate and know when to perform

specific tasks to create a functioning society within the

hive. Because the bees are not given orders by the queen,

one must assume that there is another influence organis-ing the workforce of a hive. This iswhat the BelgianNobel

prizewinner for literature,MauriceMaeterlinck, imagined

in 1901 as the spirit of the hive [4]. In his book, Page

demonstrates that genetics and physiology can explain

what poetry left to idealistic reverie.

Within ten chapters, Page develops an increasingly

complex model, the Reproductive Groundplan Hypothesis

[5], that can account for most phenomena related to task

specialisation, individual reproductive and foraging deci-

sions, and colony level traits.He keeps thedescriptions and

explanations simple and covers basic biological principles

when necessary (e.g., when talking about RNA interfer-

ence

experiments,

he

briefly

reviews

DNA,

RNA,

andproteins). In the same vein, Page follows the advice of

hismentor,HarryLaidlaw, by using redundancies tomake

his points clear. Each chapter is illustrated with tables,

photographs, diagrams, cartoons, and schemes throughout

to help the reader understand the hypotheses and experi-

mental data that lead to themodel.Occasionally, however,

some of the graphs are too schematic to convey the

intended information. For example, an ellipse containing

three circles and little ladders might evoke associations of

a cell with multiple nuclei, especially because the legend

explains how DNA is translated into RNA in the nucleus.

Yet, this was meant to symbolise the working of RNA

interference in the fat body of a bees abdomen.

This volume is not intended for laymen. Yet, thanks to

Pages efforts tomake thestoryof thegeneticarchitecture of

a socialinsect colonyaccessibletoabroadaudience, theycan

still grasp the gist, even though they might not be able to

fully appreciate all the arguments presented in this book.

However, for biologists, the findings from behavioural

experiments, colony level traits, selective breeding and

crossing, dissections, mathematical models, and geneticmapping are clearly presented, the results thoroughly dis-

cussed, and the consequential experiments sufficientlymo-

tivated. Indeed, this is the strength of this thorough yet

unpretentious work: combining seemingly eclectic data,

gathered by a wide array of methods, presenting them in

a logical order, and fitting them in the unifying hypothesis

represented by the Reproductive Groundplan Hypothesis.

Page generally succeeds in reducing complicated hypothe-

sesandexperimentaldesigns to simple questions, aswell as

distilling theessenceofeachpieceofevidence.Byanswering

these questions step by step,we get increasingly closer to a

detailed picture of how selection has acted on the genetic

material of solitary ancestors to bring about intricate socie-ties.Page presents thesteps that have been taken in such a

well thought out way that the reader can often anticipate

which experiment will come next.

Even though the evidence for theReproductiveGround-

planHypothesis is convincing,Page rightlywarns that our

models are probably (partially) wrong and may be over-

thrown one day. He is especially sceptical about beanbag

thinking and advocates an ecology of genes, in which the

whole genome and the physiology are integrated.

His profound knowledge of the literature, not only of

often widely scattered, published manuscripts but also of

unpublished data, puts him in an ideal position to summa-

rise

and

synthesise

over

30

years

of

research.

In

this

light,it is unfortunate that Page decided not to cite the relevant

references in the text, and instead chose to provide a list of

suggested reading for each chapter. Thereby, several arti-

cles are recommended repeatedly in different chapters,

whereas others go unreferenced, even though the authors

are mentioned in the text. However, large portions of the

final five chapters of the book can also be found in a recent

review article [6], and its reference list could serve as a

starting point into the literature.

The Spirit of the Hive is awarm invitation and excellent

opportunity for those biologists not familiarwith the phys-

iology and genetics of social insect colonies to be introduced

to proximate aspects of social evolution.Readerswill find a

Book Reviews

Corresponding author: Ernst, U.R. (Uli.Ernst@bio.kuleuven.be).

686

http://-/?-mailto:Uli.Ernst@bio.kuleuven.bemailto:Uli.Ernst@bio.kuleuven.behttp://-/?-

8/12/2019 Pi is 0169534713002334

2/2

seamless tale: genetic changes in physiology influence

behaviour resulting in different colony level traits altering

the environment of a colony that again impacts physiology

and genetics.

References1 Holldobler, B. and Wilson, E.O. (2009) The Superorganism, W.W.

Norton, (New York and London)

2 Seeley, T.D. (2010) Honeybee Democracy, Princeton University Press,

(Princeton and Oxford)

3 Turillazzi, S. (2012) The Biology of Hover Wasps, Springer, (New York)

4 Maeterlinck,M. (1901)TheLifeof the Bee, Dodd,Mead& Co, (NewYork)

5 West-Eberhard, M.J. (1996)Wasp societies asmicrocosms for the study

of development and evolution. In Natural History and Evolution of

Paper-wasps. (Turillazzi, S. and West-Eberhard, M.J., eds), pp. 290

317, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press

6 Page, R.E. et al. (2012) Genetics of reproduction and regulation of

honeybee(ApismelliferaL.)socialbehavior.Annu.Rev.Genet.46,97119

0169-5347/$ see front matterhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.010 Trends in Ecology & Evolution,

December 2013, Vol. 28, No. 12

How to view our/the universeThe Science of Discworld IV: Judgement Day by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, and Jack Cohen. Ebury Press, 2013. 18.99, hbk (342 pages),ISBN: 978 0 09 194979 2

Ian C.W. Hardy

School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, LE12 5RD, UK

Three previous books by the same trio of

authors have explored a multitude of sci-

entific topics, including plenty of biology,

using chapters of real-science inter-

spersed with illustrative and enjoyable

nonscience from the fictional unreality of

Discworld [1,2]. There is now, after an 8-

year gap, a fourth part to the trilogy.

Judgement Day follows the same inter-

spersed structure, but the science:fiction

ratio is noticeably higher: the pure-Discworld chapters are

short.

The theme running throughout the book is that thereare two fundamentally different ways to think about the

world. Perhaps not super-surprisingly, these two ways are

essentially science and faith or, more informatively put,

seeing the universe as the context for humanity versus

seeing the humanity as the context for the universe. Ifwe

take thehuman-centredstance, this is our universe,with

us as its purpose and at the (conceptual if not actual)

centre of it. Then, among other things, the universe is a

resource for usto exploit. If the universe-centred stance is

taken, thentheuniverse is indifferent to ourexistence and

we are minor players on cosmic scales of time and space.

Thevalue of the latter stanceis that it steps awayfrom the

innate

human

tendency to

rely on

intuition:

scientistsactively try to disprove things that they would like to be

true and build an analytically based understanding of

their surroundings.

The authors claim that thinkingwithoutwhat they term

adequate equipment is often signalled in popular debates

by the phrase I reckon.They are not theologians (although

Cohen was once to become a Rabbi), and neither am I, so I

wonder what our brethren in the humanities will make of

Pratchett et al.s reckoning that few faith-based systems

advocate self-doubt as a desirable instrument of change

and the associated assertion that In religion, doubt is often

anathema:what counts is how strongly you believe things.

I suspect that theologians test their faith more than is

suggested here, at least for a given value of test.

Overall, Pratchett et al. take us engagingly and, at times

brilliantly, through a slew of scientific and mathematical

subjects, using sources from the ancient to the bang-up-to-

date. For readers of TREE, the list notably includes: Dar-

winism, RNA, the importance of ribosomes, astrobiology,

Bayesian neuroscience, and a memorable fridge-magnet-

type phrase Biology isnt just physics and chemistry with

knobs on. In fact, by reading this book, one usefully

improves

and consolidates

ones grasp

of

things such

as

verysmall physics (e.g., fundamental particles: in a nutshell,

there seem to be about 17) and very big physics (e.g., the

shape of the universe: it is unknown) more than one does of

the life sciences.

Despite it not containing all that many pages explicitly

devoted to ecology or evolution, I would recommend this

book to readers of TREE for two reasons. Generally, be-

cause thinking about the philosophicalmethod of science is

always useful. Specifically, because, like it or not, our

discipline is connected to issues of faith [3], for example,

via debates about intelligent design and religious objec-

tions to genes being selfish.This bookprovides a relatively

conciliatory

discussion,

appreciative

of

some

aspects

offaith-based thinking and lacking (most of) the beagle-bite

of Dawkinss God Delusion [4]. When reading near the

beginning, I thought the authors might end up positing

something akin toGoulds non-overlappingmagisteria[5].

In fact, the book progressively becomes clear in its uni-

verse-centred, and definitely antifundamentalist, stance.

Judgement Day would nestle happily next to Dawkins [4]

in the library of the Unseen University in Discworld and it

should certainly be placed in the science rather than the

fantasy section (so, not next to theBible,asfinally proposed

in Pratchett et al.s Epilogue). Judgement Day will be of

thought-provoking relevance to ecologists and evolutionary

biologists for as long as there remain two fundamentallyCorresponding author: Hardy, I.C.W. (ian.hardy@nottingham.ac.uk).

Book Reviews Trends in Ecology & Evolution December 2013, Vol. 28, No. 12

687

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.010http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-mailto:ian.hardy@nottingham.ac.ukmailto:ian.hardy@nottingham.ac.ukhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0169-5347(13)00233-4/sbref0005