Social animals must communicate to define group membership and coordinate social organization. For social insects, communication is predominantly mediated through chemical signals, and as social complexity increases, so does the requirement for a greater diversity of signals. This relationship is particularly true for advanced eusocial insects, including ants, bees, and wasps, whose chemical communication systems have been well-characterized. However, we know surprisingly little about how these communication systems evolve during the transition between solitary and group living. Here, we demonstrate that the sensory systems associated with signal perception are evolutionarily labile. In particular, we show that differences in signal production and perception are tightly associated with changes in social behavior in halictid bees. Our results suggest that social species require a greater investment in communication than their solitary counterparts and that species that have reverted from eusociality to solitary living have repeatedly reduced investment in these potentially costly sensory perception systems.

Division of labour in social insect colonies is facilitated in two ways: through temporal sharing of tasks or by morphologically specialised castes. In casteless species, colony defence is maintained by morphologically indistinct workers, who lack the obvious defensive specialisation of polymorphic species. Discrimination of intruders is carried out via antenna, which also detects defensive social cues such as alarm pheromones. Despite their functional importance however, antennal morphology is rarely considered in studies of nestmate recognition. We investigated antennal morphology and the necessity of social cues in mediating defensive behaviour across differentially tasked workers of a casteless social bee, Tetragonula carbonaria. Our results suggest that the current understanding of division of labour in casteless worker species remains poorly understood, with differences in antennal morphology and aggression creating morphologically and behaviourally distinct ‘cryptic castes’. Further, we found that defensive behaviour was only elicited near nest odours, highlighting the importance of mediating aggression among workers.

Social insects construct nests that protect their brood and food resources from both the physical environment and natural enemies. Stingless bees use plant‐derived resins, mixed with wax to form propolis, in the construction of their nests, and these products can be effective sources of defense against natural enemies, including ants. However, it is not known whether this defense, in the form of deterring or repelling workers, derives from the physical properties or chemical compounds of these products. The nest entrance of Tetragonula carbonaria is constructed with propolis and Corymbia resins, and we ask whether nonvolatile chemicals present in these products act as a defense against ants. Our field experiments revealed that workers of Iridomyrmex mayri Forel were deterred from crossing a chemical barrier comprising nonvolatile, nonpolar (hexane) extracts of propolis and Corymbia tree resin. However, polar (ethanol) extracts did not have this effect. These data are the first to demonstrate that the chemical components alone of entrance propolis and resins can provide a nest‐defense function against ants.

No abstract