Schmidt sting pain index

The Schmidt sting pain index arose from the pursuit of a larger hypothesis: that the evolution of sociality in Hymenoptera was dependent on the evolution of venom that was both painful and toxic.[16] Pain is an advertisement of damage in the body, but molecules that produce pain and those that are toxic, and actively cause damage, are not the same. Although the painful signal acts as a deterrent, intelligent predators will learn the dishonesty of this signal with repeated exposure – that there is no real damage being done.[17] For the early Hymenoptera that were primarily solitary, the pain alone would allow them the chance to escape. Furthermore, solitary insects do not provide a high energy reward for predators, and therefore predators do not expend significant effort to hunt them. However, with the evolution of sociality where many Hymenoptera cluster together in colonies, nests become a nutritionally rich and therefore worthwhile target.[18] If there were no defenses, predators would devour the defenseless society, leaving few surviving individuals and eliminating social reproduction.[17] Sociality would therefore not be beneficial. In order for sociality to evolve, Hymenoptera needed a defense beyond a painful sting to protect their whole colony. Their sting was an advertisement of damage, and toxicity evolved as its truth. With a toxic sting, and thus the ability to protect against predators, Hymenoptera were able to progress towards sociality and its associated evolutionary benefits of the shared raising of youth, individual task specialization, inter-colony communication, and food storage.[18]

To approach studying this evolutionary connection between toxicity and sociality, Schmidt recognized there needed to be a quantitative measure with which to score the painfulness of stings. Assays for toxicity are already well characterized and can be quantified, but without the Schmidt sting pain index, there would be no way to relate the amount of sociality to the level of pain, and therefore this hypothesis could not have been studied.[19]