Understandable that empirical data is biased towards bees, ants, and termites but I keep seeing these species in general theoretical papers as well while no mention about thrips or aphids despite a couple of decades having passed after their discovery as social insects?
I believe it is the outcome of a number of factors. In comparison to Thysanoptera, bees, ants, and termites have significantly more individuals actively doing research and far more published studies. Ants are prevalent and easily identifiable, and many species adapt well to laboratory environments where colonies may be kept. Focusing on these groups, in other words, has typically been more viable. As a result, substantially more information is now available, allowing for theoretical advances.
Eusocial insects are highly specialized groups with complex life cycle like honey bees, ants, termites and certain species of wasps and have certain characteristics like 1. live in colonies 2. polymorohic 3. highly specialized castes 4. division of labour 5. progressive feeding.
Though thrips and aphids live in colonies or in congregations/aggregations they lack the other characters to be called as eusocial insects. That is why these are not talked about while discussing evolution of eusociality in insects.
I was going to chime in with what Shashidhar already said: because they don't meet the definition of social insects. There are other works on them and their social behaviors, but they aren't truely eusocial because there aren't reproductive castes, division of labor, etc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication