The importance of holistically evaluating data: a comment on Holman

Abstract

First, Holman (2018) conflates queen pheromones and queen fertility signals, despite the clear distinctions between these 2 types of communication systems (Keller and Nonacs 1993). Disregarding these distinctions can lead to overly simplistic “straw man” arguments and misrepresentation of the original studies. For example, Holman (2018) states “Amsalem (Amsalem et al. 2015) made a stronger claim: that cuticular hydrocarbons cannot be queen pheromones because they are so ubiquitous and variable.” Amsalem et al. (2015) actually states: “hydrocarbon profiles are quite flexible and well suited to serve as queen signals and to advertise changes in physiology and fecundity, but potentially are less likely to serve as queen pheromones,” which are defined as manipulative signals that do not reflect the queen’s physiology (Keller and Nonacs 1993).