Evolution is a branching problem
Duffy, Morrison, and Ríos reported multiple origins of eusociality within sponge-dwelling Synalpheus in a comparative study published in 2000. This makes the group useful for examining repeated transitions, while also making shared ancestry essential to the analysis. Species cannot simply be counted as independent experiments.
AESRD proposes an explanatory programme focused on how evolutionary claims are constructed and tested, rather than treating social complexity as a ladder with a predetermined destination.
Kinship and ecology together
Duffy and Macdonald’s 2010 comparison links social organisation with life history and ecological performance. Its relevance is that both relatedness and the conditions of living matter. A claim about one should not be silently substituted for a claim about the other.
The programme would map competing explanations as explicit predictions. A proposed benefit of cooperation, for example, should specify the ecological condition under which that benefit is expected and the observation that would count against it.
Questions for a comparative framework
How are social states defined? Which traits are measured directly, and which are inferred? How does a conclusion change when a species has uncertain placement or incomplete demographic information? These decisions can affect reconstructed transitions, so they belong in the main explanation rather than in an inaccessible technical appendix.
Initial work would use published studies and small synthetic examples to explain these issues. AESRD has not reconstructed a new phylogeny or assembled an independent comparative dataset.
Expected contribution
A proposed literature atlas would connect hypotheses, methods, and findings while retaining disagreements and changes in terminology. It would explain why a comparative association can support an evolutionary account without being a controlled intervention.
The longer-term aim is to identify tractable questions for genuine collaboration. Any proposed new analysis would begin with a documented dataset, an explicit model, and a clear account of what the analysis cannot recover from the available evidence.