Could an eusocial species be wolf-sized and not subterranean? Perhaps it’d lay eggs and carry them (and the unuseful newborns) in some pockets in their bodies?
1 Like
Opossums have pouches and carry babies for a while, and they are certainly bigger than mole rats. Alligators also carry their young on their back, though not until after they have hatched. I guess that could work for a wolf sized creature, though I still think they could dig a large enough den. I guess carrying eggs is plausible, though I can’t think of any land vertebrate that does it. Some amphibians, several fish, and some spiders do though.
1 Like
Would eusocial species be better off with oviparity or viviparity?
1 Like
If some of the infertile females can still function as wet-nurses, I think viviparity would work out better for something that large. If not, I think oviparity would have increased reproducton rate over viviparity.
1 Like
Through, the smaller the hive is, as it gets smaller the larger the specimens are, the less such nurses could it deploy…
1 Like
I think the hive size would be more dependent on available food than on specimen size, and while a larger specimen might need more food, depending on what it ate, that might not be a problem. Grass eaters that live in herds in general tend to live in larger groups then other group living animals. Personally, I would rather play an omnivore or a carnivore, but a grazer could likely have a large hive at a large size.
1 Like
Don’t queens generally need higher density foods than plants?
1 Like
If your creatures were omnivores, most of the species could survive mainly on grass, and they could bring most of there meat to the queen.
1 Like
Or they could produce an extra nutritious substance and feed that to the queen…
1 Like
Yeah, and that would work well for viviparity child care as well.
1 Like
It would take care of these two issues with one feature…
Could there exist fungi-like eusocial “creatures”? Perhaps having certain “fungus” castes alongside more regular ones?
1 Like
Several types of invertebrates called detritivores serve an ecological function similar to fungi. I guess a eusocial creature could have a caste that was detrivorous. Would that count?
1 Like
Perhaps, I guess it could develop in areas especially rich in good quality detritus.
1 Like
Detrius could be the waste and/or trash or other members of its species. The detrivorous caste could literally live off rotting leftovers, poop, and the corpses of the fallen members of its species. That would actually be an effective, albeit gross, way to keep the nest clean.
1 Like
Through I guess it’d only develop if for whatever reason the castemates can’t properly get rid of all the detritus, leading to a new caste being split off, most likely off a caste which already spent most of it’s life in the nest, which’d slowly adapt to an increasingly detritus-rich diet, potentially producing a more edible material from excess energy…
1 Like
If that is referring to the 2 for 1 solution of producing an extra nutritious substance, and I was the queen, I am not sure I would want to drink or eat something that came out of a detritus eater.
Huzza, I am finally Tribal.
1 Like
I mean, it’s always extra nutrients for the factories colony queens are. They’d use getting more food, even if it used to be detritus…
1 Like