The size and shape of an animal, known as its morphology, often reflect the actions it can perform. A grasshopper’s long legs, for example, are well suited to hopping, whilst the streamlined body of a dolphin helps swimming through water. These specialized features result from the interplay between morphology and behavior during evolution. A change in morphology can make new behaviors possible, which can then expose the animal to new environments and selective pressures that, in turn, can lead to further changes in morphology.

The interplay between morphology and behavior is particularly interesting in social insects such as ants. Queens and workers within an ant colony have a similar set of genes, but they have dramatically different morphologies and very different roles within the colony. Queens are responsible for reproduction, and are larger and have wings, which allow them to fly and establish a new colony away from where they were born. Workers are smaller and lack wings, and they devote themselves to building the nest, feeding the young larvae and protecting the colony. This marked morphological divergence, unique to ants, has fascinated researchers for more than a century. However, most studies have focused on the presence or absence of wings and have overlooked the interactions between morphology and the actions performed on the ground.

Like all insects, an ant’s body is divided into three parts: the head, the thorax (to which the legs and wings are attached), and the abdomen. Now, Keller et al. have examined the shape of the thorax in many species of ants and found that workers are not just smaller wingless versions of queens: rather, the architecture of their thorax is unique among species of flying insects. The front end of the worker thorax is greatly enlarged and is filled by strong neck muscles that power the head and its jaws, and allow workers to hunt and carry prey many times their own weight.

Keller et al. also identified two distinct types of queens and went on to show that these two shapes evolved in association with the two types of strategy that lone queens use to found new colonies. In species where queens convert their own wing muscles into the food for the first generation of workers, the wing muscles are much enlarged and the neck segment is extremely reduced. In species where queens hunt to feed the new colony, the wing and neck muscles are more balanced in size. As such, for those ant species where very little is known about how new colonies are founded, Keller et al. show that we can use the shape of the queen’s thorax to help predict this behavior.

Taken together, the results of Keller et al. show that female ants invest in the relative size of the different segments of the thorax in a way that reflects their behavior as adults. These adaptations partly explain why ants have been so extraordinarily successful in nature, and underscore the importance of carefully analyzing an organism’s form to fully understand its biology.

A detailed understanding of morphology is of prime importance to elucidate how organisms evolved and operate in nature. This is especially so in an era of increasingly sophisticated developmental genetic analysis, as the correct interpretation of molecular data depends largely on the precise characterization of morphological structures (e.g., Prud’homme et al., 2011 vs Yoshizawa, 2011; Mikó et al., 2012). During development, the relative investment in the growth of different body parts (e.g., allocation of nutritional resources to somatic vs germ tissues) will determine adult morphologies, and thus influence an organism’s ecology (Nijhout and Emlen, 1998; Emlen, 2001). Morphology interacts very closely with behavior in shaping phenotypic evolution (Baldwin, 1896; Simpson, 1953; Robinson and Dukas, 1999). On the one hand, changes in behavior will often influence the environment in which organisms are selected, leading to modifications of morphology (Wcislo, 1989; Crispo, 2007). On the other hand, morphological specializations can open the potential for further behavioral change (West-Eberhard, 2003).

Specializations that associate morphology and behavior have compelling examples in insect polyphenisms, where alternative morphologies result from environmental regulation of development and are typically associated with distinct behavioral repertoires (Beldade et al., 2011; Simpson et al., 2012). For example, horned and hornless male beetles produced as a result of nutritional plasticity have different reproductive tactics (guarding vs sneaking access to females in nests [Moczek and Emlen, 2000]). In many social insects, differential feeding leads to the production of distinct queen and worker castes, each with characteristic morphology and behavior underlying reproductive vs maintenance functions within the colony (Wheeler, 1986; Beldade et al., 2011), and increasing colony performance as a whole (Oster and Wilson, 1978).

Among the social Hymenoptera, ants are an extreme case of caste polyphenism, because queens are usually winged and workers are always wingless (Wilson, 1971; Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990). Flight allows queens to disperse from the natal nests before they start new colonies, while the lack of wings in workers is thought to facilitate the exploitation of ground habitats and cramped spaces (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990). The presence and operation of wings is tightly associated with the morphology of the thorax. In the typical thorax of modern flying insects, the first segment (T1) bears no dorsal appendages, while the second (T2) and third (T3) each bear a pair of wings (Snodgrass, 1935). Because of this, studies of morphological specializations of the insect thorax have focused on the wing-bearing segments T2 and T3. The relative size of these segments varies widely across insect orders, but tends to be conserved within (Dudley, 2002). Surprisingly, the entire thoracic skeletomuscular architecture of ant castes, including the T1 segment that forms the articulation with the head, has been neglected, from both functional and comparative perspectives.

In this study, we use a phylogenetically broad comparative approach, involving queens and workers from species representing 21 of the 25 extinct and extant ant subfamilies, to investigate external morphology and internal anatomy in the context of caste-specific specialized behaviors. Our analysis reveals a unique modification of the thoracic architecture in worker ants, presumably connected with their powerful head and mandibles, and uncovers two types of thoracic configurations in queens, associated to different strategies for the foundation of new colonies.

To characterize caste-specific modifications in the architecture of the thorax, we first quantified the length of the thoracic segments in queens and workers of 11 species and performed anatomical dissections in multiple individuals from 19 species, representing eight ant subfamilies. We unveiled a unique thorax architecture in workers vs queens and then confirmed the generality of our findings in an extended sample of species across ant diversity. The quantitative analysis of thorax morphology showed that queens fall in two distinct anatomical types. Using parsimony and maximum likelihood (ML) methods, we reconstructed the pattern of thoracic evolution onto the established phylogenetic tree of the ants (Brady et al., 2006; Moreau et al., 2006) for 54 genera representing 21 subfamilies plus two genera of wasps as outgroups. We also compiled behavioral data on the mode of colony foundation for our exemplar species and tested for correlated evolution between queen thoracic morphology and founding behavior. Our comparisons are drawn from a total of 111 species belonging to 93 genera within Formicidae, representing 20 of the 21 extant subfamilies plus the fossil taxon Sphecomyrminae^† among the four extinct subfamilies.

The unique thoracic architecture of worker ants

We assessed the relative sizes and configuration of the dorsal plates that form the thoracic exoskeleton in 265 queens and workers belonging to 11 species in five major ant subfamilies (Table 1). For each caste of each species, we measured the length of T1, T2, and T3 of 5–17 individuals from museum collections. Our morphometric analyses showed that in ant queens, both T1 and T3 are reduced relative to T2, which makes up most of the thorax (Figure 1A). This conforms to the typical proportions in insects where flight is powered exclusively by large wing muscles inside T2 (Snodgrass, 1935; Dudley, 2002) (e.g., Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Lepidoptera). In contrast, in ant workers, T1 is greatly enlarged and forms a significant portion of the thorax, while T2 is reduced (illustrative SEM image in Figure 2). T3 is absent dorsally in workers of most species but, when T3 is distinguishable, the T3/T2 ratio does not differ between castes. In contrast, the ratio between T1 and T2 clearly discriminates workers and queens. Rather than just showing an overall reduction in T2, consistent with their lack of wings, worker ants have a T1/T2 ratio reversed in relation to queens (Figure 1A; SEM images in Figure 2). The difference between castes in this ratio depends on the species (Linear model: interaction Species x Caste, df = 10, F= 68.3, p<0.00001) but it is always greater in workers than in queens (Linear Model: holding the factor Species constant, factor Caste, df = 1, F= 8975.3, p<0.00001). Visual inspection of an extended sample of species (Table 2) from 21 of the 25 ant subfamilies (including the extinct taxon Sphecomyrminae^†) confirmed the universality of these relative length differences. Castes of all species with specimens available show a differential investment in the growth of T1 and T2. T2 was larger than T1 in queens of all 52 species examined, and T1 was larger than T2 in workers of all 111 species examined (Table 2; examples in Figure 1—figure supplement 2).

Table 1

		Morphometrics		Dissections
Subfamily	Species	q	w	q	w
Amblyoponinae	Amblyopone australis	6	8	2	2
Dolichoderinae	Tapinoma simrothi	–	–	6	10
Ectatomminae	Ectatomma ruidum	–	–	3	5
Formicidae	Lasius niger	15	15	2	4
	Oecophylla smaragdina	–	–	2	5
	Polyrhachis laboriosa	13	5	3	8
Myrmeciinae	Myrmecia simillima	–	–	2	4
	Nothomyrmecia macrops	–	–	1	4
Myrmicinae	Carebara vidua	5	3	1	1
	Cataulacus wasmanni	15	15	3	3
	Leptothorax pergandei	13	15	1	3
	Messor barbarus	–	–	3	8
	Monomorium pharaonis	15	15	2	4
	Monomorium subopacum	–	–	2	3
	Pogonomyrmex barbatus	15	17	4	5
Ponerinae	Brachyponera lutea	15	15	3	5
	Harpegnathos saltator	–	–	2	4
	Neoponera apicalis	7	12	4	10
Pseudomyrmecinae	Tetraponera aethiops	11	15	4	6

1. q = number of queens examined; w = number of workers examined. Generic placement of Brachyponera lutea and Neoponera apicalis reflects the new reclassification of species within the former paraphyletic genus Pachycondyla (Schmidt CA, Shattuck SO, The higher classification of the ant subfamily Ponerinae [Hymenoptera: Formicidae], with a review of ponerine ecology and behavior. Under review).

Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Table 2

FAMILY/subfamily	species	queen		worker
		Museum	Voucher code	Museum	Voucher code
FORMICIDAE
Aenictinae	Aenictus vaucheri/binghami	MSNG	CASENT0903754	AMNH	RAK0094
Agroecomyrmecinae	Tatuidris tatusia	DADC	CASENT0178881	BMNH	RAK0001
Amblyoponinae	Adetomyrma sp			AMNH	RAK0003
Amblyoponinae	Amblyopone australis	ANIC	CASENT0172213	AMNH	RAK0005
Amblyoponinae	Amblyopone mercovichi			MCZ	RAK0006
Amblyoponinae	Apomyrma stygia	MNHN	CASENT0101445	MCZ	RAK0083
Amblyoponinae	Concoctio concenta			MCZ	RAK0011
Amblyoponinae	Myopopone castanea	ANIC	CASENT0172069	AMNH	RAK0012
Amblyoponinae	Mystrium sp	CASC	CASENT0104559	CASC	CASENT0076622
Amblyoponinae	Onychomyrmex doddi			AMNH	RAK0014
Amblyoponinae	Prionopelta punctulata	ANIC	CASENT0172312	AMNH	RAK0016
Amblyoponinae	Stigmatomma armigera			AMNH	RAK0004
Amblyoponinae	Stigmatomma pallipes	ABS	CASENT0103553	MCZ	RAK0009
Amblyoponinae	Stigmatomma pluto			MCZ	RAK0010
Amblyoponinae	Xymmer muticus			MCZ	RAK0007
Aneuretinae	Aneuretus simoni	ANIC	CASENT0172259	MCZ	RAK0074
Cerapachyinae	Acanthostichus serratulus			AMNH	RAK0095
Cerapachyinae	Cerapachys nitidulus	RAKC	RAK127	AMNH	RAK0096
Cerapachyinae	Cerapachys doryloides			AMNH	RAK0097
Cerapachyinae	Cylindromyrmex brevitarsus	JTLC	CASENT0610653	AMNH	RAK0098
Cerapachyinae	Simopone schoutedeni			AMNH	RAK0099
Dolichoderinae	Dolichoderus bispinosus	ALWC	CASENT0173835	ALWC	CASENT0173833
Dolichoderinae	Iridomyrmex lividus	ANIC	CASENT0172066	ANIC	CASENT0172041
Dolichoderinae	Leptomyrmex pallens			AMNH	RAK0075
Dolichoderinae	Tapinoma erraticum	CASC	CASENT0173200	AMNH	RAK0078
Dolichoderinae	Technomyrmex albipes	CASC	CASENT0060419	AMNH	RAK0079
Dorylinae	Dorylus conradti/helvolus	MSNG	CASENT0903712	AMNH	RAK0100
Ecitoninae	Cheliomyrmex morosus			AMNH	RAK0101
Ecitoninae	Eciton hamatum	JTLC	INBIOCRI001283500	AMNH	RAK0103
Ecitoninae	Labidus coecus			AMNH	RAK0102
Ectatomminae	Ectatomma tuberculatum	JTLC	JTLC000014186	AMNH	RAK0017
Ectatomminae	Gnamptogenys annulata			AMNH	RAK0018
Ectatomminae	Gnamptogenys striatula	MIZA	CASENT0178660	AMNH	RAK0019
Ectatomminae	Gnamptogenys bufonis			MCZ	RAK0020
Ectatomminae	Gnamptogenys minuta			MCZ	RAK0021
Ectatomminae	Rhytidoponera metallica	ANIC	CASENT0172346	ANIC	CASENT0172345
Ectatomminae	Typhlomyrmex pusillus	MIZA	CASENT0178662	AMNH	RAK0023
Ectatomminae	Typhlomyrmex rogenhoferi			AMNH	RAK0024
Formicinae	Formica sp. (fusca group)	CASC	CASENT0173171	AMNH	RAK0080
Formicinae	Lasius flavus	CASC	CASENT0173149	UCDC	CASENT0005406
Formicinae	Oecophylla smaragdina	CASC	CASENT0173644	AMNH	RAK0082
Formicinae	Polyergus sp	RAKC	RAK0129	RAKC	RAK0130
Formicinae	Polyrhachis revoili	CASC	CASENT0403971	CASC	CASENT0227558
Heteroponerinae	Acanthoponera minor			AMNH	RAK0025
Heteroponerinae	Heteroponera brouni	MCZ	RAK0128	AMNH	RAK0026
Heteroponerinae	Heteroponera relicta			AMNH	RAK0027
Leptanillinae	Leptanilla swani	AMNH	RAK129	AMNH	RAK0084
Leptanilloidinae	Leptanilloides erinys/biconstricta	UCDC	CASENT0234616	AMNH	RAK0104
Martialinae	Martialis heureka			MZSP	CASENT0106181
Myrmeciinae	Myrmecia gulosa	CASC	CASENT0103309	CASC	CASENT0103310
Myrmeciinae	Nothomyrmecia macrops			AMNH	RAK0086
Myrmicinae	Aphaenogaster fulva	CASC	CASENT0104857	CASC	CASENT0103585
Myrmicinae	Carebara vidua	CASC	CASENT0260121	CASC	CASENT0010803
Myrmicinae	Cataulacus wasmanni	CASC	CASENT0498338	CASC	CASENT0498558
Myrmicinae	Leptothorax pergandei	MCZ	RAK0125	MCZ	RAK0126
Myrmicinae	Manica rubida			AMNH	RAK0090
Myrmicinae	Messor barbarus	RAKC	RAK0123	RAKC	RAK0124
Myrmicinae	Metapone madagascarica	CASC	CASENT0004524	MCZ	RAK0093
Myrmicinae	Monomorium pharaonis	ABS	CASENT0104094	ABS	CASENT0104095
Myrmicinae	Myrmica wheeleri	MCZ	CASENT0102860	MCZ	CASENT0102862
Myrmicinae	Pogonomyrmex uruguayensis	RAJC	CASENT0172689	RAJC	CASENT0103054
Paraponerinae	Paraponera clavata	RAKC	RAK0122	AMNH	RAK0028
Ponerinae	Anochetus mayri	ABS	CASENT0103555	MCZ	CASENT0003324
Ponerinae	Asphinctopone silvestrii			MCZ	RAK0031
Ponerinae	Belonopelta deletrix			MCZ	RAK0032
Ponerinae	Bothroponera pachyderma			AMNH	RAK0054
Ponerinae	Brachyponera croceicornis			AMNH	RAK0051
Ponerinae	Centromyrmex brachycola	UCDC	CASENT0178343	AMNH	RAK0033
Ponerinae	Cryptopone gilva	CASC	CASENT0006055	AMNH	RAK0034
Ponerinae	Diacamma ceylonense			AMNH	RAK0035
Ponerinae	Dinoponera lucida			AMNH	RAK0036
Ponerinae	Dolioponera fustigera			MCZ	RAK0037
Ponerinae	Emeryopone buttelreepeni			MCZ	RAK0038
Ponerinae	Hagensia marleyi			MCZ	RAK0053
Ponerinae	Harpegnathos saltator			AMNH	RAK0039
Ponerinae	Hypoponera sp1.			AMNH	RAK0040
Ponerinae	Leptogenys (Leptogenys) sp.1			AMNH	RAK0041
Ponerinae	Leptogenys (Lobopelta) sp.2			AMNH	RAK0042
Ponerinae	Leptogenys podenzanai			MCZ	RAK0043
Ponerinae	Loboponera obeliscata			AMNH	RAK0044
Ponerinae	Loboponera vigilans			AMNH	RAK0045
Ponerinae	Myopias chapmani	ANIC	CASENT0172094	ANIC	CASENT0172093
Ponerinae	Neoponera apicalis	ALWC	CASENT0103060	AMNH	RAK0048
Ponerinae	Neoponera villosa			AMNH	RAK0058
Ponerinae	Odontomachus bauri	CASC	CASENT0172630	AMNH	RAK0030
Ponerinae	Odontoponera transversa	BMNH	CASENT0900664	AMNH	RAK0047
Ponerinae	Ophthalmopone berthoudi			MCZ	RAK0049
Ponerinae	Pachycondyla crassinoda			AMNH	RAK0050
Ponerinae	Cryptopone guianensis			MCZ	RAK0052
Ponerinae	Pseudoneoponera porcata			AMNH	RAK0055
Ponerinae	Pseudoponera stigma			AMNH	RAK0056
Ponerinae	Paltothyreus tarsatus			AMNH	RAK0057
Ponerinae	Phrynoponera gabonensis			AMNH	RAK0059
Ponerinae	Platythyrea punctata	ABS	CASENT0104429	AMNH	RAK0060
Ponerinae	Platythyrea turneri			MCZ	RAK0061
Ponerinae	Plectroctena strigosa			AMNH	RAK0062
Ponerinae	Ponera alpha			MCZ	RAK0063
Ponerinae	Ponera pennsylvanica	CASC	CASENT0006086	AMNH	RAK0064
Ponerinae	Psalidomyrmex procerus			AMNH	RAK0065
Ponerinae	Simopelta oculata			MCZ	RAK0066
Ponerinae	Streblognathus peetersi			AMNH	RAK0067
Ponerinae	Thaumatomyrmex atrox			AMNH	RAK0068
Proceratiinae	Discothyrea oculata			AMNH	RAK0069
Proceratiinae	Discothyrea testacea	ABS	CASENT0103848	AMNH	RAK0070
Proceratiinae	Proceratium croceum	ABS	CASENT0104440	AMNH	RAK0071
Proceratiinae	Proceratium pergandei			AMNH	RAK0072
Proceratiinae	Probolomyrmex guineensis			AMNH	RAK0073
Pseudomyrmecinae	Pseudomyrmex gracilis	ABS	CASENT0103779	AMNH	RAK0087
Pseudomyrmecinae	Tetraponera aethiops			AMNH	RAK0088
Pseudomyrmecinae	Tetraponera attenuata	CASC	CASENT0217587	AMNH	RAK0089
Sphecomyrminae†	Sphecomyrma freyi†			AMNH	AMNH NJ-943
SCOLIIDAE	Scolia nobilitata	AMNH	RAK0121
VESPIDAE	Metapolybia cingulata	AMNH	RAK0120

1. Information on museum holdings and voucher codes for queens and workers. ABS, Archbold Biological Station; ALWC, Alexander Wild Collection; AMNH, American Museum of Natural History; ANIC, Australian National Insect Collection; BMNH, British Museum of Natural History; CASC, California Academy of Science; DADC, David A. Donoso Collection; JTLC, Jack Longino Collection; MCZ, Museum of Comparative Zoology (Harvard); MIZA, Museo del Instituto de. Zoología Agrícola (Venezuela); MNHN, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle; MSNG, Natural History Museum, Genoa; MZSP, Museu de Zoologia Universidade de São Paulo; RAJC, Robert Johnson Collection; RAKC, Roberto Keller Collection; UCDC; University of California Davis.

2. ^† denotes extinct taxa.

To infer the functional significance of the caste-specific external thoracic configurations, we performed a comparative analysis of the internal skeletomuscular system in queens and workers. We dissected 144 individuals from 19 species belonging to eight subfamilies (Table 1) and analyzed both muscle (extent of attachment) and skeletal elements. Our dissections showed that the length of the thoracic segments in dorsal view is a reflection of the volume of the muscles associated with each segment. In the same way that the large T2 of queens is indicative of the presence of large wing muscles, the large T1 in workers reflects the enlargement of muscles in this segment (Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2). Studies in other insects established that homologous T1-associated skeletomuscular elements are involved in the head-thorax articulation or neck (Snodgrass, 1935, 1956; Hartenstein, 2006). In queens of all 19 ant species dissected (Table 1), the neck-associated muscles were short and thin, traversing the narrow space of T1 between the head and the anterior phragma (cuticular invagination) of T2 where the wing muscles attach (Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 1A). This configuration of neck elements is similar to that of female honey bees irrespective of caste (Snodgrass, 1956), and Drosophila fruit flies (Hartenstein, 2006; McQuilton et al., 2012). In contrast, in ant workers, the expansion of T1 and the lack of both anterior phragma and wing muscles result in a larger anterior cavity that contains neck muscles and skeletal pieces in a unique configuration.

The most striking muscular difference between ant castes concerns one of the notopleural pairs of muscles that originate dorsally on T1 (np in Figure 2, right column; Figure 2—figure supplement 1C–H). The main function of homologous muscles in honey bees is to carry the plates that support the head and serve to move it sideways or rotate it (Snodgrass, 1956). In ant queens, where most of the thoracic cavity is filled by the wing muscles (as is the case in all castes of honey bees), these muscles are narrow and close to the thoracic wall. Our dissections revealed that the equivalent muscles in ant workers are hypertrophied, and fill the wider T1 cavity completely. Ant workers also show important differences in internal skeleton associated with T1 (Figure 2—figure supplement 2B). This skeletomuscular configuration highlights the increased strength of the workers’ neck that powers head movements.

Two types of queen thoracic architecture

Even though queens invest mostly in the thoracic segment used for flight (T2), our morphometric data showed that queens of different species fall into two discrete categories based on the relative investment into T1. When plotting the normalized length of T1 vs T2 for 130 queens measured (Table 1), we can discriminate two clusters of species (Figure 1B; where workers of all species form a third cluster). For five of the 11 species in Table 1, queens have a reduced T1, almost not visible in dorsal view (Figure 2A). The other six species form a category with queens having an intermediate T1, corresponding to enlarged T1 muscles (Figure 2B).

To investigate the evolution of queen thoracic configurations across the ant phylogeny, we focused on a total of 54 ant species (those in Table 2 for which queens were available for measurements) representing 21 subfamilies, as well as two species of wasps from different families as outgroups (Table 3). Queens were scored as belonging to the categories ‘reduced T1’ (22 species, all with T1/T2 < 0.14) or ‘intermediate T1’ (32 species, all with T1/T2 > 0.28), as seen in Figure 1B. This information was combined with a well-established ant phylogeny (Brady et al., 2006; Moreau et al., 2006) and we used parsimony and maximum likelihood (ML) methods to reconstruct ancestral character states (Figure 3). Our analysis showed that an ‘intermediate T1’ in queens arose in the common ancestor to all ants (ML proportional likelihood = 0.800), and that there were multiple transitions to the ‘reduced T1’ (Figure 3). This reduction seems to have evolved convergently in at least four major ant lineages. Transitions back to an ‘intermediate T1’ are rare and more recent events, being restricted to the genera Polyergus within subfamily Formicinae, and Cataulacus and Metapone within subfamily Myrmicinae. In contrast, the universal occurrence of a hypertrophied T1 in workers (including the primitive fossil Sphecomyrma^†) supports a single origin of this novel thoracic configuration in the common ancestor of all ants (Figure 3).

Table 3

Subfamily	Genus	T1/T2 in queens	T1 in queens	Colony founding	References
Aenictinae	Aenictus	2.742	intermediate*	fission	(Gotwald and Cunningham-van Someren, 1976)
Agroeconomyrmecinae	Tatuidris	0.111	reduced	unknown
Amblyoponinae	Amblyopone	0.382	intermediate	non-claustral	(Haskins and Haskins, 1951)
Amblyoponinae	Apomyrma	0.338	intermediate	unknown
Amblyoponinae	Myopopone	0.453	intermediate	non-claustral	(Ito, 2010)
Amblyoponinae	Mystrium	0.454	intermediate	non-claustral	(Molet et al., 2009)
Amblyoponinae	Prionopelta	0.514	intermediate	non-claustral	(Ito and Billen, 1998)
Aneuretinae	Aneuretus	0.096	reduced	claustral	(Wilson et al., 1956)
Cerapachyinae	Cerapachys	0.364	intermediate	unknown ICF + fission	(Brown, 1975)
Cerapachyinae	Cylindromyrmex	0.454	intermediate	non-claustral	(Delabie and Reis, 2000)
Dolichoderinae	Dolichoderus	0.061	reduced	unknown
Dolichoderinae	Iridomyrmex	0.071	reduced	claustral	(Hölldobler and Carlin, 1985)
Dolichoderinae	Tapinoma	0.111	reduced	claustral	(Kannowski, 1959)
Dolichoderinae	Technomyrmex	0.071	reduced	claustral	(Yamauchi et al., 1991)
Dorylinae	Dorylus	0.372	intermediate*	fission	(Kronauer et al., 2004)
Ecitoninae	Eciton	0.469	intermediate*	fission	(Schneirla, 1949)
Ectatomminae	Ectatomma	0.325	intermediate	non-claustral	(Dejean and Lachaud, 1992)
Ectatomminae	Gnamptogenys	0.331	intermediate	non-claustral	(‡)
Ectatomminae	Rhytidoponera	0.363	intermediate	non-claustral	(Ward, 1981)
Ectatomminae	Typhlomyrmex	0.504	intermediate	unknown
Formicinae	Formica	0.076	reduced	claustral	(Stille, 1996)
Formicinae	Lasius	0.053	reduced	claustral	(Stille, 1996)
Formicinae	Oecophylla	0.066	reduced	claustral	(Hölldobler and Wilson, 1978)
Formicinae	Polyergus	0.323	intermediate	non-claustral†	(Mori et al., 1995)
Formicinae	Polyrhachis	0.072	reduced	claustral and non-claustral	(Lenoir and Dejean, 1994)
Heteroponerinae	Heteroponera	0.485	intermediate	non-claustral	(§)
Leptanillinae	Leptanilla	2.685	intermediate*	fission	(Masuko, 1990)
Leptanilloidinae	Leptanilloides	3.021	intermediate*	fission	(Donoso et al., 2006)
Martialinae	Martialis	n/a	unknown	unknown
Myrmeciinae	Myrmecia	0.485	intermediate	non-claustral	(Haskins and Haskins, 1950)
Myrmicinae	Aphaenogaster	0.117	reduced	claustral	(Lubertazzi, 2012)
Myrmicinae	Carebara	0.072	reduced	claustral	(Robertson and Villet, 1989)
Myrmicinae	Cataulacus	0.494	intermediate	unknown
Myrmicinae	Leptothorax	0.090	reduced	claustral	(Keller and Passera, 1989)
Myrmicinae	Messor	0.110	reduced	claustral and non-claustral	(Brown, 1999)
Myrmicinae	Metapone	0.428	intermediate	unknown
Myrmicinae	Monomorium	0.132	reduced	claustral	(Bolton, 1986)
Myrmicinae	Myrmica	0.071	reduced	claustral and non-claustral	(Brown and Bonhoeffer, 2003)
Myrmicinae	Pogonomyrmex	0.097	reduced	claustral and non-claustral	(Johnson, 2002)
Paraponerinae	Paraponera	0.086	reduced	non-claustral	(#)
Ponerinae	Anochetus	0.367	intermediate	non-claustral	(Brown, 1978)
Ponerinae	Centromyrmex	0.493	intermediate	non-claustral	(Dejean and Fénéron, 1996)
Ponerinae	Cryptopone	0.533	intermediate	non-claustral	(Peeters, 1997)
Ponerinae	Ponera	0.356	intermediate	non-claustral	(Kannowski, 1959)
Ponerinae	Myopias	0.282	intermediate	non-claustral	(Peeters, 1997)
Ponerinae	Odontomachus	0.411	intermediate	non-claustral	(Brown, 1976)
Ponerinae	Odontoponera	0.524	intermediate	non-claustral	(Peeters, 1997)
Ponerinae	Pachycondyla	0.385	intermediate	non-claustral	(Peeters, 1997)
Ponerinae	Platythyrea	0.417	intermediate	non-claustral	(Peeters, 1997)
Proceratiinae	Discothyrea	0.093	reduced	non-claustral and claustral	(Dejean and Dejean, 1998)
Proceratiinae	Proceratium	0.095	reduced	non-claustral	(¶)
Pseudomyrmecinae	Pseudomyrmex	0.479	intermediate	non-claustral	(**)
Pseudomyrmecinae	Tetraponera	0.558	intermediate	non-claustral	(**)
Sphecomyrminae†	Sphecomyrma†	n/a	unknown	unknown
OUTGROUPS
Scoliinae	Scolia	0.087	reduced	non-social	(††)
Polistinae	Metapolybia	0.074	reduced	fission	(††)

1. Queen thoracic morphology and type of colony foundation across ants. The wasp taxa Scolia and Metapolybia are included as outgroups.

2. *

   species with wingless queens. ^† denotes extinct taxa.

3. †

   Polyergus is an obligatory social parasite of Formica spp.

4. ‡

   John Lattke, personal communication.

5. §

   Rodrigo Feitosa, personal communication.

6. #

   Haskins CP, Enzmann EV (1937) Studies of certain sociological and physiological features in the Formicidae. Ann NY Acad Scien 37:97-162; Michael Breed, personal communication.

7. ¶

   Fuminori Ito, personal communication; Keiichi Masuko, personal communication.

8. **

   Philip Ward, personal communication.

9. ††

   James M Carpenter, personal communication.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

The ecological dominance of ants in terrestrial ecosystems is unparalleled in the animal kingdom (Wilson, 1971; Folgarait, 1998). Because no other group of social insects reaches equivalent levels of adaptive radiation and species-richness (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990), it seems that factors in addition to social behavior and division of labor promoted ant diversification. The evolutionary success of ants is indisputably associated with a strong divergence between queens and workers. A caste of flightless workers specialized in non-reproductive activities is unique among social Hymenoptera. However, rather than being just simplified, wingless versions of the queen, the thorax of ant workers has its own specialization. Relative to the thoracic morphology of queens, which is typical of species of flying insects, worker ants have an unusually large T1 and T1-associated muscles, which provide superior strength and mobility to the neck controlling head movements.

Control of the head is of great importance for ant workers, which in some species singly hunt and carry prey up to 30-90 times their weight (Dejean, 2011; Dejean et al., 2012). Among insects, ant carrying behavior is unique in that workers lift their load off the ground. Many other insects can move relatively large objects, but by dragging (e.g., spider wasps) or rolling them (e.g., dung beetles) on the ground, or holding them while flying (e.g., robber flies). Biomechanical studies on grass-cutting ants have shown that workers perform controlled head movements at the neck articulation when transporting large objects (Moll et al., 2010). Precise head movements are essential to reduce displacement of the center of mass, and retain stability while carrying objects many times the workers’ weight and length. Our finding that worker ants differ from queens and other flying insects in the configuration and size of the T1-associated muscles suggests that ants can achieve this biomechanical feat by virtue of their specialized neck musculature. This represents a striking structural innovation, differentiating ant workers from the typical flying insects, which had not been recognized until now. Their distinctive internal skeletomuscular modifications presumably enhance their behavior as flightless foragers and heavy-load transporters. We propose that the modified T1 was an innovation that helped ants to use their heads and mandibles in novel ways, and hence exploit a broader spectrum of trophic resources. Compared to social bees and wasps (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990), where worker morphology is constrained by the requirements of a winged thorax, mandibular morphology and function have specialized enormously across ant lineages (Paul and Gronenberg, 1999), in parallel with their much greater diversification of foraging habits.

Our analysis also showed that queens fall in two distinct anatomical types that evolved in association with the two strategies of independent colony founding. Foraging activity during independent foundation is high in non-claustral species vs absent in claustral species. Non-claustral queens have a T1 that is closer in size to that of workers, while claustral queens, which do not go through a worker-like phase, have a much more reduced T1. Unfortunately, biomechanical data of neck strength in queens are difficult to obtain because they are evasive and, especially in claustral species, cannot be induced to carry objects. Claustral queens have an enlarged T2 relative to non-claustral queens, reflecting the existence of massive wing muscles (Figure 2A). A correlation between increased wing muscle mass and claustral behavior has been suggested before: these larger muscles do not function to enhance flight, rather they are a solution for storing amino acids that are essential for feeding the first generation of workers without outside foraging (Jones et al., 1978; Peeters, 2012) . We speculate that, during the acquisition of claustral behavior, the decrease in foraging activity lessened the constraint on the size of T1, thus allowing T2 to expand and accommodate larger wing muscles as metabolic reserves. Differences in the nesting habits of queens, such as excavating a nest vs nesting in pre-existing cavities, might also impose variable muscle requirements. However, this type of behavioral differences occurs across species in a scattered pattern that does not match the anatomical categories we revealed. There are examples of nest excavating by queens with ‘intermediate’ (e.g., Amblyopone) and ‘reduced’ T1 (e.g., Pogonomyrmex), and of nesting in pre-existing cavities by ‘intermediate’ (e.g., Tetraponera) as well as ‘reduced’ T1 (e.g., Leptothorax) species.

While data on queen morphology is readily accessible from museum collections for many species, knowledge about their founding behavior remains sparse. There is no published information in many important genera, possibly because this requires field observations of behavior at an appropriate time of the year. Our findings provide a means of predicting colony foundation strategy from the morphology of the queen thorax, and thus guide field research on particular species of interest. For example, within the subfamily Myrmicinae (clade 14 in Figure 3), the genera Cataulacus and Metapone show independent reversals to an ‘intermediate T1’ in queens, suggesting that colony foundation is not claustral as in closely related genera. Importantly, the phylogenetic component of our correlation provides a powerful tool to infer the ecology of extinct clades for which behavioral observations are impossible. For example, we lack data on queens of two early lineages, the extinct Sphecomyrma^† and the enigmatic Martialis, but based on our reconstructions we can predict that they will have an ‘intermediate T1’ and behave non-claustrally.

Our finding that the ratio of the lengths of T1 and T2 is inverted between queens and workers suggests that a morphological trade-off was at play in determining the relative size of these two segments. It is likely that T1 can become hypertrophied only at the expense of a reduced, non-functional T2. Indeed, our anatomical analysis showed that some of the internal modifications of T1 in workers are only possible in conjunction with a complete absence of wing muscles. Conversely, only queens with a highly reduced T1 have an expanded T2 that constitutes most of the thoracic dorsum (queens with intermediate T1 are also intermediate for T2, see Figure 1B). This morphological trade-off between adjacent body segments can occur due to competition for metabolic resources during pre-adult development (Nijhout and Emlen, 1998). It is possible that the functional cost of enlarging T2 (reserves for colony founding) at the expense of T1 (reduced neck strength and work performance), occurred when founding behavior gradually shifted to claustral, with a decreased need to forage outside the nest.

1. 1. Keller RA
   2. Peeters C
   3. Beldade P

   (2014) Data from: Evolution of thorax architecture in ant castes highlights trade-off between flight and ground behaviors

   Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository.

   http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.d62p2

1. 1. Baldwin JM

   (1896) A new factor in evolution

   The American Naturalist 30:441–451.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/276408

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Beldade P
   2. Mateus ARA
   3. Keller RA

   (2011) Evolution and molecular mechanisms of adaptive developmental plasticity

   Molecular Ecology 20:1347–1363.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05016.x

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bolton B

   (1986) Apterous females and shift of dispersal strategy in the Monomorium salomonis-group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

   Journal of Natural History 20:267–272.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/00222938600770211

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Borowiec ML
   2. Schulz A
   3. Alpert GD
   4. Baňař P

   (2011)

   Discovery of the worker caste and descriptions of two new species of Anomalomyrma (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Leptanillinae) with unique abdominal morphology

   Zootaxa 28:1–14.

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Brady SG
   2. Schultz TR
   3. Fisher BL
   4. Ward PS

   (2006) Evaluating alternative hypotheses for the early evolution and diversification of ants

   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:18172–18177.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605858103

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Brown WL Jnr

   (1975)

   Contributions toward a Reclassification of the Formicidae. V. Ponerinae, Tribes Platythyreini, Cerapachyini, Cylindromyrmecini, Acanthostichini, and Aenictogitini

   Search Agric 5:1–116.

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Brown WL Jnr

   (1976)

   Contributions toward a reclassification of the Formicidae. Part VI. Ponerinae, tribe Ponerini, subtribe Odontomachiti. Section A. Introduction, subtribal characters. Genus Odontomachus

   Studia Entomologica 19:67–171.

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Brown WL Jnr

   (1978)

   Contributions toward a reclassification of the Formicidae. Part VI. Ponerinae, tribe Ponerini, subtribe Odontomachiti. Section B. Genus Anochetus and bibliography

   Studia Entomologica 20:549–638.

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Brown MJF

   (1999) Semi-claustral founding and worker behaviour in gynes of Messor andrei

   Insectes Sociaux 46:194–195.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s000400050133

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Brown MJF
    2. Bonhoeffer S

    (2003)

    On the evolution of claustral colony founding in ants

    Evolutionary Ecology Research 5:305–313.

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Crispo E

    (2007) The Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation: revisiting two mechanism of evolutionary change mediated by phenotypic plasticity

    Evolution 61:2469–2479.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00203.x

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Cronin AL
    2. Molet M
    3. Doums C
    4. Monnin T
    5. Peeters C

    (2013) Recurrent evolution of dependent colony foundation across eusocial insects

    Annual Review of Entomology 58:37–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153643

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dejean A

    (2011) Prey capture behavior in an arboreal african ponerine ant

    PLOS ONE 6:e19837.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019837

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dejean A
    2. Dejean A

    (1998) How a ponerine ant acquired the most evolved mode of colony foundation

    Insectes Soclaux 45:343–346.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s000400050093

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Dejean A
    2. Delabie JHC
    3. Corbara B
    4. Azémar F
    5. Groc S
    6. Orivel J
    7. Leponce M

    (2012) The ecology and feeding habits of the arboreal trap-jawed ant Daceton armigerum

    PLOS ONE 7:e37683.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037683

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Dejean A
    2. Fénéron R

    (1996) Polymorphism and oligogyny in the ponerine ant Centromyrmex bequaerti (Formicidae: Ponerinae)

    Insectes Sociaux 43:87–99.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01253959

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Dejean A
    2. Lachaud J-P

    (1992) Growth-related changes in predation behavior in incipient colonies of the ponerine ant Ectatomma tuberculatum (Olivier)

    Insectes Sociaux 39:129–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01249289

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Delabie JHC
    2. Reis YT

    (2000)

    Sympatry and mating flight synchrony of three species of Cylindromyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in southern Bahia, Brazil, and the importance of Malaise trap for rare ants inventory

    Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 44:109–110.

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Donoso D
    2. Vieira JM
    3. Wild A

    (2006)

    Three new species of Leptanilloides Mann from Andean Ecuador (Formicidae: Leptanilloidinae)

    Zootaxa 1201:47–62.

    • Google Scholar
20. Book

    1. Dudley R

    (2002)

    The biomechanics of insects flight: form, function, evolution

    Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Emlen DJ

    (2001) Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures

    Science 291:1534–1536.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1056607

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Folgarait PJ

    (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review

    Biodiversity and Conservation 7:1221–1244.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008891901953

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Gotwald WH Jnr
    2. Cunningham-van Someren GR

    (1976)

    Taxonomic and behavioral notes on the African ant, Aenictus eugenii Emery, with a description of the queen (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

    JNY Entomol Soc 84:182–188.

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Grimaldi D
    2. Agosti D
    3. Carpenter JM

    (1997)

    New and rediscovered primitive ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, and their phylogenetic relationships

    American Museum Novitates 3208:1–43.

    • Google Scholar
25. Book

    1. Hartenstein V

    (2006)

    The muscle pattern of Drosophila

    In: Sink H, editors. Muscle development in Drosophila. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 8–27.

    • Google Scholar
26. Book

    1. Haskins CP

    (1970)

    Researches in the biology and social behavior of primitive ants

    In: Aronson L, Tobach E, Lehrman D, Rosenblatt JS, editors. Development and evolution of behavior. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. pp. 355–388.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Haskins CP
    2. Haskins EF

    (1950)

    Notes on the biology and social behavior of the archaic ponerine ants of the genera Myrmecia and Promyrmecia

    Ann Entomol Soc Am 43:461–491.

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Haskins CP
    2. Haskins EF

    (1951) Note on the method of colony foundation of the ponerine ant Amblyopone australis Erichson

    The American Midland Naturalist 45:432–445.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2421735

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Hölldobler B
    2. Carlin NF

    (1985)

    Colony founding, queen dominance and oligogyny in the Australian meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18:45–58.

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Hölldobler B
    2. Wilson EO

    (1978) The multiple recruitment system of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 3:19–60.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00300045

    • Google Scholar
31. Book

    1. Hölldobler B
    2. Wilson EO

    (1990)

    The Ants

    Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Ito F

    (2010) Notes on the biology of the Oriental amblyoponine ant Myopopone castanea: Queen-worker dimorphism, worker polymorphism and larval hemolymph feeding by workers (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

    Entomological Science 13:199–204.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8298.2010.00384.x

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Ito F
    2. Billen J

    (1998)

    Larval hemolymph feeding and oophagy: behavior of queen and workers in the primitive ponerine ant Prionopelta kraepelini (Hymenoptera, Formicidae)

    Belgian Journal of Zoology 128:201–209.

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Johnson RA

    (2002) Semi-claustral colony founding in the seed-harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus: a comparative analysis of colony founding strategies

    Oecologia 132:60–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0960-2

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Jones R
    2. Davis W
    3. Hung A
    4. Vinson S

    (1978) Insemination-induced histolysis of the flight musculature in fire ants (Solenopsis spp.): an ultrastructural study (1)

    The American Journal of Anatomy 151:603–610.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001510411

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kannowski PB

    (1959) The flight activities and colony-founding behavior of bog ants in southeastern Michigan

    Insectes Soclaux 6:115–162.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02225947

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Keller L
    2. Passera L

    (1989)

    Size and fat content of gynes in relation to the mode of colony founding in ants (Hymenoptera; Formicidae)

    Oecologia 80:236–240.

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Keller RA

    (2011) A phylogenetic analysis of ant morphology (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with special reference to the poneromorph subfamilies

    Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 355:1–90.

    https://doi.org/10.1206/355.1

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Keller RA
    2. Peeters C
    3. Beldade P

    (2014) Data from: Evolution of thorax architecture in ant castes highlights trade-off between flight and ground behaviors

    Dryad Digital Repository.

    https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.d62p2

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kronauer DJC
    2. Schöning C
    3. Pedersen JS
    4. Boomsma JJ
    5. Gadau J

    (2004) Extreme queen-mating frequency and colony fission in African army ants

    Molecular Ecology 13:2381–2388.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02262.x

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Lenoir A
    2. Dejean A

    (1994) Semi-claustral colony foundation in the formicine ants of the genus Polyrhachis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

    Insectes Soclaux 41:225–234.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01242293

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Lewis PO

    (2001) A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data

    Systematic Biology 50:913–925.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501753462876

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Lubertazzi D

    (2012)

    The Biology and Natural History of Aphaenogaster rudis

    Psyche (Cambridge) 2012:11.

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Maddison WP

    (1990) A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree?

    Evolution 44:539–557.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2409434

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Maddison DR
    2. Maddison WP

    (2005) MacClade 4: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution

    Version 4.08a ed., http://macclade.org.

    http://macclade.org/

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Maddison WP
    2. Maddison DR

    (2012) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis

    2.0 ed. http://mesquiteproject.org.

    http://mesquiteproject.org/

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Masuko K

    (1990) Behavior and Ecology of the Enigmatic Ant Leptanilla japonica Baroni Urbani (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Leptanillinae)

    Insectes Soclaux 37:31–57.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02223813

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. McQuilton P
    2. St Pierre SE
    3. Thurmond J
    4. FlyBase Consortium

    (2012) FlyBase 101 – the basics of navigating FlyBase

    Nucleic Acids Research 40:D706–D714.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr1030

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Mikó I
    2. Friedrich F
    3. Yoder MJ
    4. Hines HM
    5. Deitz LL
    6. Bertone MA
    7. Seltmann KC
    8. Wallace MS
    9. Deans AR

    (2012) On dorsal prothoracic appendages in treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae) and the nature of morphological evidence

    PLOS ONE 7:e30137.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030137

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Moczek AP
    2. Emlen DJ

    (2000) Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes?

    Animal behaviour 59:459–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1342

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Moll K
    2. Roces F
    3. Federle W

    (2010) Foraging grass-cutting ants (Atta vollenweideri) maintain stability by balancing their loads with controlled head movements

    Journal of Comparative Physiology 196:417–480.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0535-3

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Molet M
    2. Fisher B
    3. Ito F
    4. Peeters C

    (2009) Shift from independent to dependent colony foundation and evolution of ‘multi-purpose’ ergatoid queens in Mystrium ants (subfamily Amblyoponinae)

    Biological Jorunal of the Linnean Society 98:198–207.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01257.x

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Moreau CS
    2. Bell CD
    3. Vila R
    4. Archibald SB
    5. Pierce NE

    (2006) Phylogeny of the ants: diversification in the age of angiosperms

    Science 312:101–104.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1124891

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Mori A
    2. D’Ettorre P
    3. Le Moli F

    (1995) Host nest usurpation and colony foundation in the European amazon ant, Polyergus rufescens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

    Insectes Sociaux 42:279–286.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01240422

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Nijhout HF
    2. Emlen DJ

    (1998) Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95:3685–3689.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.7.3685

    • Google Scholar
56. Book

    1. Nixon KC

    (2002)

    WinClada. 1.00.08 ed

    Ithaca, New York: Published by the author.

    • Google Scholar
57. Book

    1. Oster GF
    2. Wilson EO

    (1978)

    Caste and ecology in the social insects

    Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Paul J
    2. Gronenberg W

    (1999)

    Optimizing force and velocity: mandible muscle fibre attachments in ants

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 202:797–808.

    • Google Scholar
59. Book

    1. Peeters C

    (1997)

    Morphologically “primitive” ants: comparative review of social characters, and the importance of queen-worker dimorphism

    In: Choe J, Crespi B, editors. The evolution of social behavior in insects and Arachnids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 372–391.

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Peeters C

    (2012)

    Convergent evolution of wingless reproductives across all subfamilies of ants, and sporadic loss of winged queens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

    Myrmecological News 16:75–91.

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Prud’homme B
    2. Minervino C
    3. Hocine M
    4. Cande JD
    5. Aouane A
    6. Dufour HD
    7. Kassner VA
    8. Gompel N

    (2011) Body plan innovation in treehoppers through the evolution of an extra wing-like appendage

    Nature 473:83–86.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09977

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. R Development Core Team

    (2008) R foundation for statistical computing

    R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.r-project.org/.

    http://www.r-project.org/

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Rabeling C
    2. Brown JM
    3. Verhaagh M

    (2008) Newly discovered sister lineage sheds light on early ant evolution

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:14913–14917.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806187105

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Robertson HG
    2. Villet MH

    (1989)

    Colony founding in the ant Carebara vidua: the dispelling of a myth

    South African Journal Of Animal Science 85:121–122.

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Robinson BW
    2. Dukas R

    (1999) The influence of phenotypic modifications on evolution: the Baldwin effect and modern perspectives

    Oikos 85:582–589.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/3546709

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Schneirla TC

    (1949)

    Army-ant life and behavior under dry season conditions. 3. The course of reproduction and colony behavior

    Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 94:1–82.

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Simpson S
    2. Sword G
    3. Lo N

    (2012) Polyphenism in insects

    Current Biology 21:R738–R749.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.006

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Simpson GG

    (1953) The Baldwin effect

    Evolution 7:110–117.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2405746

    • Google Scholar
69. Book

    1. Snodgrass RE

    (1935)

    Principles of insect morphology

    Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    • Google Scholar
70. Book

    1. Snodgrass RE

    (1956)

    Anatomy of the honey bee

    Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Stille M

    (1996) Queen/worker thorax volume ratios and nest-founding strategies in ants

    Oecologia 105:87–93.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00328795

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Trager JC

    (2013) Global revision of the dulotic ant genus Polyergus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae, Formicinae, Formicini)

    Zootaxa 3722:501–548.

    https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3722.4.5

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Ward PS

    (1981) Ecology and life history of the Rhytidoponera impressa group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). II. Colony origin, seasonal cycles, and reproduction

    Psyche 88:109–126.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/1981/39593

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Ward PS

    (2007)

    Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

    Zootaxa 1668:549–563.

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Wcislo WT

    (1989) Behavioral environments and evolutionary change

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 20:137–169.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001033

    • Google Scholar
76. Book

    1. West-Eberhard MJ

    (2003)

    Developmental plasticity and evolution

    New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Wheeler DE
    2. Buck NA

    (1996) Depletion of reserves in ant queens during claustral colony founding

    Insectes Soclaux 43:297–302.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01242930

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Wheeler DE

    (1986) Developmental and physiological determinants of caste in social Hymenoptera: evolutionary implications

    The American Naturalist 128:13–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/284536

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Wilson EO
    2. Eisner T
    3. Wheeler GC
    4. Wheeler J

    (1956)

    Aneuretus simoni Emery, a major link in ant evolution

    Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 115:81–99.

    • Google Scholar
80. Book

    1. Wilson EO

    (1971)

    The insect societies

    Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Yamauchi K
    2. Furukawa T
    3. Kinomura K
    4. Takamine H
    5. Tsuji K

    (1991) Secondary polygyny by inbred wingless sexuals in the dolichoderine ant Technomyrmex albipes

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29:313–319.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165955

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Yoshizawa K

    (2011) The treehopper’s helmet is not homologous with wings (Hemiptera: Membracidae)

    Systematic Entomology 37:2–6.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2011.00606.x

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Roberto A Keller

   1. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
   2. Laboratoire Écologie & Évolution, CNRS UMR 7625, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

   Contribution

   RAK, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   roberto.kellerperez@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

2. Christian Peeters

   Laboratoire Écologie & Évolution, CNRS UMR 7625, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

   Contribution

   CP, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Patrícia Beldade

   Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal

   Contribution

   PB, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

• 3,330

  views

• 399

  downloads

• 73

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.