14 ANIMAL AGGREGATIONS 



made an exhaustive classification of the different forms of animal 

 groupings {V ergesellschaftung) in which he undertakes to arrange 

 logically all such associations, ranging from the relatively simple 

 colonies of the protozoans — Synura or Carchesium, where all the 

 individuals are similar and all arise from the same parent-cell and 

 are organically connected with each other — to colonies of ants with 

 their complicated social structure, which may include, in addition 

 to the ant castes themselves, their slaves, their commensals, their 

 tolerated guests, parasites, parasites of the parasites, or parasites 

 of other associated forms. 



A summary of the classification of animal aggregations as worked 

 out by Deegener is given here at some length, not because I accept it 

 entirely with all its implications, but because it is the most complete 

 classification yet produced and because I am in hearty accord 

 with the principle underlying this scheme of organization: that no 

 hard and fast line can be drawn between well-integrated social or- 

 ganizations and loosely integrated aggregations which are usually 

 regarded as being definitely non-social. Further, experience with pre- 

 senting this material to seminar students has shown the desirability 

 of wading through a detailed outline, such as that of Deegener's, in 

 order to acquire a comprehensive view at one and the same time of 

 the ramifications of the subject matter and of its inherent unity. 



It is the custom at present to ignore this work of Deegener or to 

 fail to appreciate its essential value (Wheeler, 1928) because of ob- 

 vious defects in its cumbersome terminology, in the criteria used to 

 distinguish between major groupings, and because the categories are 

 not clean cut and mutually exclusive. Many of these faults are in- 

 herent in a pioneering classification of subject matter in any field, 

 and others were caused by the lack of definite knowledge in 1918 of 

 the relationships involved. On this latter count we are in a position 

 to make improvements on Deegener's classification at the present 

 time, but we do not appear to be able to refine it sufficiently as yet 

 to repay the trouble involved. 



The account given below is not a direct translation of Deegener's 

 1918 outline; but it follows that outline and gives his point of view, 

 criticisms of which have been suggested and will later be elaborated. 



