COMMUNAL SOCIETIES. 325 



COMMUNAL SOCIETIES. 



By CHAKLES MORRIS. 



IN the paper on " Neuter Insects," recently published in " The Popu- 

 lar Science Monthly," * the argument on certain phases of animal 

 evolution there presented was not offered as a complete one. For a 

 full exposition of the development of ant and bee intelligence, this sub- 

 ject needs to be considered from another point of view, and the pres- 

 ent paper is intended as, in a partial sense, a sequel to the one above 

 named. 



It is usual to divide animals, in respect to their habits of associa- 

 tion, into two classes, the solitary and the social. The solitary animals 

 comprise all those which form sexual combinations only, and the class 

 embraces all those species of the smaller mammals and birds which flock 

 together solely from the fact that they are very numerous, and seek 

 food in the same localities, not from any association for mutual aid. 



The social animals form true communities. They are banded to- 

 gether by certain common interests, and possess a principle of associa- 

 tion beyond that of the sexual. They present the germinal condition 

 of a political society. These comprise most of the large herbivora, 

 which aggregate for purposes of common defense, in some cases sta- 

 tioning sentries for protection while feeding, and in others following 

 certain acknowledged leaders. Instances of any such association are 

 rare among carnivora, the wolves being the most marked example. 



Yet in the social animals, as a rule, the common interests are few, 

 and the links of association weak. Individuality largely persists, there 

 is no idea of common property, and nearly or quite the only intei'est 

 in common is that of attack or defense. Separated from these by a 

 broad interval are some three or four animal tribes whose socialism 

 is of so advanced a type that it fairly deserves to be indicated by a 

 special name. These tribes comprise the ants, bees, and termites, 

 among insects, and the beavers among mammals. Their conditions 

 of association are so different from those prevailing in most other 

 cases, that it seems i3roper to consider them as a separate class. I 

 propose for them the title of communal animals, as most distinctive 

 of their life-habits. 



Instead of possessing a few links of combination, these animals have 

 most or all of the relations of life in common. In ant and bee com- 

 munities, for instance, individualism has vanished. All property is 

 held in common, all labor is performed for the community, there are a 

 common home, common stores, common duties, community alike in 

 assault and defense, and it is difficult or impossible to detect any ant 



* December, 1885. 



