Jump to content

  • Chat
  •  
  •  

Welcome to Formiculture.com!

This is a website for anyone interested in Myrmecology and all aspects of finding, keeping, and studying ants. The site and forum are free to use. Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation points to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Photo

Hobbyist Ant Keeping Myths


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#21 Offline Barristan - Posted April 13 2017 - 8:42 AM

Barristan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • LocationBindlach, Bavaria, Germany

The list that Reaker put together was made of claims they felt were unsubstantiated. They did not argue that the opposite is true, and neither am I. However, making a claim with unaccountable conditions placed upon a single colony is part of a pseudoscientific environment that we should discourage as a way to advance the hobby. We must always be wary of hidden variables and combat them through control, repetition, and large sample sizes. That is how the scientific method works.


By calling the statements myths he actually made that claim. Because a myth is always a false statement.

#22 Offline Roachant - Posted April 13 2017 - 9:03 AM

Roachant

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • LocationMontreal, Quebec, Canada
I agree with Reaker, in that unless there is strict evidence and scientific method demonstrating for certain some of these myths are accurate, we should label them as they were intended, myths or observations.


I also agree that input from any source regarding ant care is important because there is still a lot we don't know regarding ant care, and any input by hobbyists can only be beneficial.

#23 Offline Reacker - Posted April 13 2017 - 9:05 AM

Reacker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationFree State of Greater Potatonia

 

The list that Reaker put together was made of claims they felt were unsubstantiated. They did not argue that the opposite is true, and neither am I. However, making a claim with unaccountable conditions placed upon a single colony is part of a pseudoscientific environment that we should discourage as a way to advance the hobby. We must always be wary of hidden variables and combat them through control, repetition, and large sample sizes. That is how the scientific method works.


By calling the statements myths he actually made that claim. Because a myth is always a false statement.

 

You have been correct in this thread in pointing out that my wording could have been more precise. As I said in the original post this thread did not start out with such a general focus but was mostly concerned on that one "myth" as I called it. However my intended meaning in this thread has been properly sussed out by Batspiderfish and I appreciate his cheritable interpretation of my words. In fact after posting I attempted to change the title to better reflect this but that does not seem to be possible. I will say that by focusing on the least charitable interpretation of my words when it was easy to figure what I was trying to say as batspiderfish has done that you've managed to sidestep the intended point of this thread entirely to focus on bad wording. Please proceed with the understanding that my intent is correctly clarified by Batspiderfish's postings. 

 

With some slight modifications to my wording to make what I'm saying literally correct rather than just contextually interpretable as being correct:

 

  • Replace "myths" with whatever is equivalent to "  ant keeping techniques perpetuated by almost exclusively novice keepers to other novice keepers despite the complete and total lack of trustworthy evidence supporting their efficacy"
  • Change the wording of the second "myth" to something closer to: Does it matter at all to long term colony health that ants are kept in darkness rather than constant light? 

Edited by Reacker, April 13 2017 - 9:19 AM.

  • Barristan, noebl1 and T.C. like this

#24 Offline Reacker - Posted April 13 2017 - 9:09 AM

Reacker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationFree State of Greater Potatonia

 

Provide detail and evidence to prove a point.

I don't have to and will not, in fact I don't even care at all.

I'm an ant hobbyist keeping ONE SINGLE ant colony - I'm not a "gotta catch them all" antpokomon hoarder like some people, and I'm certainly not a lab with a few dozen spare colonies and testing facilities.

 

 

This is the entire purpose of this thread. If you "don't care at all" than neither I nor anyone has has any reason to care about your input in this thread. Please remove yourself from the discussion so as to leave less of your trade mark nonsense that has to be ignored by people that do care. 


  • Kevin and T.C. like this

#25 Offline Serafine - Posted April 13 2017 - 9:26 AM

Serafine

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,782 posts
  • LocationGermany

Good luck talking with the zero people that actually fulfill your requirements of having a lab, a few hundred spare colonies and enough free time to test that stuff because given these requirements the entire discussion is pointless as there's nobody who can contribute to it.

 

Yes, there is a lack of scientific evidence to pretty much every aspect of this hobby but as long as there's nobody who can actually do anything about it, all you can say is "remember that this may or may not be true" - which is the final point this discussion will ever reach.


Edited by Serafine, April 13 2017 - 9:37 AM.

We should respect all forms of consciousness. The body is just a vessel, a mere hull.

Welcome to Lazy Tube - My Camponotus Journal


#26 Offline Barristan - Posted April 13 2017 - 9:48 AM

Barristan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • LocationBindlach, Bavaria, Germany

My list of things ant keepers say without having any prove:
 

  • Ants don't need a dark nest
  • Black mold in test tubes is dangerous for ants
  • You have to change test tube asap if water changes it's color in a test tube
  • Feeding meat to ants is unnatural
  • Feeding ants insects from outside is dangerous
  • Processed food is dangerous for ants
  • Spices are dangerous for ants
  • Plug foam is poisonous for ants
  • Plug foam contains fungicides
  • Honey is better than sugared water for ants
  • Native ants are easier to keep than exotic ants
  • Leafcutter ants from Mexico could survive a winter in Germany

Edited by Barristan, April 13 2017 - 9:54 AM.

  • Reacker, Jonathan21700 and LC3 like this

#27 Offline Reacker - Posted April 13 2017 - 9:58 AM

Reacker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationFree State of Greater Potatonia

I get the point of this topic, but it seems to disregard the fact that most of us are hobbyists. Sure, anecdotal evidence isn't as good as meticulously gathered data, but that doesn't invalidate it.

I understand that and I understand that you can't expect most ant keepers to provide extremely rigorous results with statistically significant sample sizes (as nice as that would be). There is a scale of rigorous reporting and controls ranging from anecdotes as simple as "I put ants in the fridge and then the other ant killed them"  all the way to peer reviewed papers posted in various journals. Most ant keepers are carrying out their ant keeping experiments in a way that's almost worthless towards determining if what they're attempting is worth the effort or not. 

 

 

gallery_10_657_11524.png

 

 

Most antkeepers are reporting their results for the techniques they advocate for at about level A when they could cheaply and easily be reporting their results at level B. Level B involves doing the things that I previous discussed such as recording temperatures, times, good description of the environment of the subjects, recording times between notable behaviors on the part of the ants or the experimenter. This is easy and requires almost no resources than what most people have lying around the house (keyboard, clock, cheap thermometer of some kind). This is the absolute bare minimum of required reporting for your results to have be worth anything at all. If you can't do this than you shouldn't be trying to give other people advice unless you can point to similarly detailed results from other ant keepers that did provide this level of detail.

 

gallery_10_657_3922.png

 

Fortunately it seems that most ant keepers capable of operating at level C are doing so regardless of whether or not they share their results. 


Edited by Reacker, April 13 2017 - 10:07 AM.

  • Martialis and OmniusClone like this

#28 Offline drtrmiller - Posted April 13 2017 - 11:00 AM

drtrmiller

    Vendor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,714 posts
I get slightly annoyed when I hear antkeepers discuss the reason behind ants burying uneaten liquids. Many seem to think the ants are storing or concealing the liquid for later use, despite the facts that 1) the increased surface area caused by adding particulates will undoubtedly cause it to dry more quickly and 2) I've never observed any ants go back to the liquid once it has been covered.
  • LC3, Kevin and CrazyLegs like this


byFormica® is the manufacturer of the iconic nectar feeders and Sunburst Ant Nectar.
byFormica ant products always deliver consistent performance, convenience,
and reliability, making them among the most beloved ant foods and kit enjoyed by
ant keeping enthusiasts worldwide. For more information, visit www.byFormica.com.

#29 Offline Reacker - Posted April 13 2017 - 11:28 AM

Reacker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationFree State of Greater Potatonia

I should also clarify that I'm not calling for the end to all advice giving unless the conditions that I've described above are met. Obviously ants need water for instance but I've never seen anyone go out of their way to do an intentional test of this.  Obviously ants need food of some kind and sugar water and insects isn't a bad place to start considering that's what you see them eating in the wild or in your house.Test tubes seem to work really well based on the hundreds of journals with pictures and dates that I've seen over the years (one of the few techniques in ant keeping that has been consistently documented). If you're unsure of whether or not to put your ants in the dark vs bright sunlight it's probably going to be better to put them in the dark based on how they move to the dark when it's offered unless you have a lot of ants to experiment with. The real problem occurs when you get into more complicated topics like refrigeration introductions, hibernation practices, more complicated aspects of long term colony nutrition, media preparation techniques and their necessity where there is almost no trustworthy data other than poorly described two cent anecdotes from novice members. 



#30 Offline T.C. - Posted April 13 2017 - 11:31 AM

T.C.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,059 posts

I get slightly annoyed when I hear antkeepers discuss the reason behind ants burying uneaten liquids. Many seem to think the ants are storing or concealing the liquid for later use, despite the facts that 1) the increased surface area caused by adding particulates will undoubtedly cause it to dry more quickly and 2) I've never observed any ants go back to the liquid once it has been covered.


My L. Alienus did that with their syrup just a week ago. Never came back to it. Rather curious of the reason myself.
  • Martialis likes this
“If I am killed for simply living, let death be kinder than man.” -Althea Davis

#31 Offline Batspiderfish - Posted April 13 2017 - 11:36 AM

Batspiderfish

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts

I get slightly annoyed when I hear antkeepers discuss the reason behind ants burying uneaten liquids. Many seem to think the ants are storing or concealing the liquid for later use, despite the facts that 1) the increased surface area caused by adding particulates will undoubtedly cause it to dry more quickly and 2) I've never observed any ants go back to the liquid once it has been covered.

 

I think investigating this by species and accounting for variables like the size/age of the colony and distance from the nest entrance or other established territories would be important. I doubt that a myrmecologist hasn't thought about this, so I'm gonna poke around the literature. In theory, it would be a strong adaptation to hide food from competitors or predators if there were less value in the risk associated with leaving the food uncovered or utilizing it (especially if it were not a major part of their diet).

As an anecdote: my Aphaenogaster are compulsive food-buries, and I believe there is little evolutionary coincidence in that I captured them when their colony was being pillaged by Formica rubicunda (although I would have to prove my hypothesis before claiming this).

If I were not to find any research on this subject, this would be totally doable in the field, with the most basic resources.


Edited by Batspiderfish, April 13 2017 - 11:40 AM.

If you've enjoyed using my expertise and identifications, please do not create undue ecological risk by releasing your ants. The environment which we keep our pet insects is alien and oftentimes unsanitary, so ensure that wild populations stay safe by giving your ants the best care you can manage for the rest of their lives, as we must do with any other pet.

 

Exotic ants are for those who think that vibrant diversity is something you need to pay money to see. It is illegal to transport live ants across state lines.

 

----

Black lives still matter.


#32 Offline drtrmiller - Posted April 13 2017 - 11:40 AM

drtrmiller

    Vendor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,714 posts

As an anecdote: my Aphaenogaster are compulsive food-buries, and I believe there is little evolutionary coincidence in that I captured them as their colony was being pillaged by Formica rubicunda.


Aphaenogaster is an exception, as they do not engage in trophallaxis, and must use tools as sponges to transport liquid to the nest.

See: http://bfy.tw/BDPT

Edited by drtrmiller, April 13 2017 - 11:40 AM.

  • Jonathan21700 likes this


byFormica® is the manufacturer of the iconic nectar feeders and Sunburst Ant Nectar.
byFormica ant products always deliver consistent performance, convenience,
and reliability, making them among the most beloved ant foods and kit enjoyed by
ant keeping enthusiasts worldwide. For more information, visit www.byFormica.com.

#33 Offline Serafine - Posted April 13 2017 - 12:10 PM

Serafine

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,782 posts
  • LocationGermany

My list of things ant keepers say without having any prove:
 
[list]

  • Ants don't need a dark nest
  • Black mold in test tubes is dangerous for ants
  • You have to change test tube asap if water changes it's color in a test tube
  • Feeding meat to ants is unnatural
  • [...]

This is actually good attempt to engage the subject. We could add to this list of "unproven rumors" so this whole topic may lead to something that's actually productive.
Because obviously this cannot be a topic about things being wrong or right but only one of being careful with "common knowledge" that's often presented as a safe fact.

Here's my add to the list of unproven "antkeeping facts/rumors" I've heard so far:
  • Shipping ants with the mail is bad for them
  • Messor doesn't need insect food to do well
  • Acrylic nests are bad for ants
  • Gypsum nests are bad for ants
  • Camponotus nests must be watered
  • Lemons are good against mites
  • A colony with two queens grows twice as fast
  • Ants don't need a diverse diet
  • Mealworms have low nutrition value

  • Cindy likes this

We should respect all forms of consciousness. The body is just a vessel, a mere hull.

Welcome to Lazy Tube - My Camponotus Journal


#34 Offline Jaaron - Posted April 13 2017 - 1:17 PM

Jaaron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • LocationSouthwest Ohio

As a newb, this is a really disappointing thread to read, for one, because so many advanced members have bothered to become a part of it, and second because the basis of the discussion is fundamentally flawed.

 

For starters, the full definition of myth includes things that may be true but are not verified, so it was used correctly in this context. Of course, bringing semantics into a discussion is usually a non-starter anyway. That said:

 

  • Ant keeping is not myrmecology. It is a hobby, not a science, and the fact that many myrmecologists sometimes practice ant keeping as part of their work does not make the two terms synonymous. Myrmecologists are under no obligation to promote or educate the broader ant-keeping community, nor are hobbyists under any obligation to practice the scientific method in their own ant keeping at their own expense (which would be substantial if it were to have actual scientific relevance). Considering that the bulk of the peer-reviewed work I've seen addresses next to nothing on the subject of ant keeping suggests that many myrmecologists are likely opposed to the extraction and confinement of queens from their natural environments on any kind of substantial scale in the first place, anecdotally speaking. 
  • Reacker's assessment of the quality of a community's membership or leadership has no bearing on whether or not it is, in fact, a community. That is, unless Reacker can provide scientific evidence to demonstrate that a community with poor membership or leadership fails to fall under the definition of community.
  • Unlike the scientific community, hobbyists are allowed to establish canon based on anecdotal consensus. That is, unless Reacker can provide scientific evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
  • The fact that some members of the community seek to profit from commercializing the hobby makes the hobby no less casual or cheap. That's a supply-side fallacy that has no merit in a hobby that can be enjoyed at next to no expense. The hobby allows for a tidy profit for some at best, at least until prices can compete with what people can do on their own with little difficulty.
  • In regards to sterilization: no side-by-side comparison is necessary. We can thank the scientific community for letting us know that ants (like most organisms) are susceptible to parasites and disease. Sterilization is a reasonable preventative measure with or without the comparative studies suggested.
  • Reacker complains that these myths of ant keeping are formed by community consensus within a community with significant turnover and short-term enthusiasm. The only consequence of this is that it takes longer for solid contributors to foster sound consensus. Too bad, so sad. Time takes time. If you want things done more efficiently, pay for it. 
  • Reacker complains that even the most successful members of the English-speaking ant-keeping community are plagued with failure, and too often fail to care for a colony for the duration of its natural lifespan. This raises questions:
  • Where is the scientific evidence that demonstrates that this only occurs for the English-speaking community?
  • Where is the scientific evidence that demonstrates that most natural ant colonies survive the full duration of a queen's potential lifespan?
  • Where is the scientific evidence that an undomesticated animal (unlike domesticated animals like cats and dogs) should be expected to achieve its natural lifespan in captivity?
  • Given that any myrmecologist will tell you that the vast majority of queens in nature fail to even begin to establish a colony and the fact that every exposed surface of the planet isn't crawling with ants, where is the scientific evidence to suggest that ants have a higher failure rate in captivity?
  • Perhaps the reason myrmecologists aren't more involved in the ant-keeping community, and tend towards a focus on taxonomy, is because they're no more inclined to promote widespread ant keeping than a cetologist is inclined to promote widespread whale keeping. That's not even an anecdote, just a wild guess. 

I fully support arguments for science, but it's hard to get behind an argument built on none of it. 


  • Barristan, AntsMAN, Martialis and 6 others like this

#35 Offline AntsMAN - Posted April 13 2017 - 1:57 PM

AntsMAN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

@Jarron well put.

 

Reacker: "The real problem occurs when you get into more complicated topics like refrigeration introductions, hibernation practices, more complicated aspects of long term colony nutrition, media preparation techniques and their necessity where there is almost no trustworthy data other than poorly described two cent anecdotes from novice members."

 

And as you said previously in that post it took some time to reach a conclusion on test tube setups, preferred foods etc, but we are working on it as a collective and sometimes we fail but that's where we move forward. These "anecdotes" as you call them are a base line for beginners to start its not set in stone. As we discover better practices we will adopt them and move forward, until then we need a place to start. This is a highly complicated creature it's going to take a long time for us to nail down the proper methods.

Your expectations are ridicules.


Current queens/colonies

Camponotus novaeboracensis x2

Camponotus pennsylvanicus x2

Camponotus herculeanus x1

Formica sp. x1

Lasius americanus x1  (Lasius alienus)

Lasius neoniger x1

Crematogastor cerasi x1

Myrmica sp. x1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


#36 Offline Batspiderfish - Posted April 13 2017 - 2:49 PM

Batspiderfish

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts

 

As an anecdote: my Aphaenogaster are compulsive food-buries, and I believe there is little evolutionary coincidence in that I captured them as their colony was being pillaged by Formica rubicunda.


Aphaenogaster is an exception, as they do not engage in trophallaxis, and must use tools as sponges to transport liquid to the nest.

See: http://bfy.tw/BDPT

 

 

I did not intend to sound like I was patronizing you, but only to help elaborate the distinction between evidence and observation, for general readers. Without ecological context, one might assume that nutrition is the sole purpose behind this behavior, but the data which has brought this tool-use to surface also demonstrates that it inhibits the foraging potential of other species which are slower to visit the baits. That explanation is incomplete.


Edited by Batspiderfish, April 13 2017 - 2:49 PM.

If you've enjoyed using my expertise and identifications, please do not create undue ecological risk by releasing your ants. The environment which we keep our pet insects is alien and oftentimes unsanitary, so ensure that wild populations stay safe by giving your ants the best care you can manage for the rest of their lives, as we must do with any other pet.

 

Exotic ants are for those who think that vibrant diversity is something you need to pay money to see. It is illegal to transport live ants across state lines.

 

----

Black lives still matter.


#37 Offline Kevin - Posted April 13 2017 - 3:04 PM

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 833 posts
  • LocationSouth Jersey

Ant keeping is not myrmecology. It is a hobby, not a science, and the fact that many myrmecologists sometimes practice ant keeping as part of their work does not make the two terms synonymous. Myrmecologists are under no obligation to promote or educate the broader ant-keeping community, nor are hobbyists under any obligation to practice the scientific method in their own ant keeping at their own expense (which would be substantial if it were to have actual scientific relevance). Considering that the bulk of the peer-reviewed work I've seen addresses next to nothing on the subject of ant keeping suggests that many myrmecologists are likely opposed to the extraction and confinement of queens from their natural environments on any kind of substantial scale in the first place, anecdotally speaking. 

 

While you are correct, this site is for Ants & Myrmecology, rather than Ant-Keeping as the site description clearly states. It is necessary to have scientifically proven statements in the study of ants, as well as any other study. One of the points Reacker failed to exclaim in attempt with the overall despicable attitude (hence his reputation points :lol:), is that this site and the overall community in the ant-keeping AND myrmecology community is starting to degrade and become full of mostly immature an/or uneducated children. The myrmecology side is filling up up with people over from the ant-keeping side, therefore we have had some changes in the general expectations of this website and myrmecology community.

 

This would also mean the title of this thread is actually incorrect, and should be "Myrmecology Myths"

 

   ‍   


Edited by Kevin, April 13 2017 - 3:10 PM.

  • Martialis likes this

Hit "Like This" if it helped.


#38 Offline Reacker - Posted April 13 2017 - 3:09 PM

Reacker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationFree State of Greater Potatonia

To start I will address a consistent part of your post which is that you have incorrectly determined that I am arguing for an unrealistic and absurd application of exhaustive scientific definition and explanation for literally every singe statement made in any context and at all times on any subject. I am not doing this, you are very mistaken, and so I will ignore the parts of your post where you are criticizing my argument on this basis (which is in a lot of places). If I ignore any of your bulletin points this is probably the reason.

 

Ant keeping is not myrmecology. It is a hobby, not a science, and the fact that many myrmecologists sometimes practice ant keeping as part of their work does not make the two terms synonymous. Myrmecologists are under no obligation to promote or educate the broader ant-keeping community, nor are hobbyists under any obligation to practice the scientific method in their own ant keeping at their own expense (which would be substantial if it were to have actual scientific relevance). Considering that the bulk of the peer-reviewed work I've seen addresses next to nothing on the subject of ant keeping suggests that many myrmecologists are likely opposed to the extraction and confinement of queens from their natural environments on any kind of substantial scale in the first place, anecdotally speaking. 

I never claimed that Myrmecologists are obligated to engage with hobbyists, nor did I claim that hobbyists should hold themselves to the same standards as actual Myrmecologists. The purpose of shifting community standards towards a more rigorous approach, even if all that means at a bare minimum is recording and posting the simple and easy observations as I have previously described, is to introduce evidence to back up the efficacy of those techniques that are constantly repeated by newer members despite the lack of even a single detailed account of those techniques working in a way that would rule out other factors. This means that you can have hobbyists going through the effort of performing techniques recommended to them with no basis in actual reality simply because they were instructed to by other members with no original source of decent testing nor a rigorous enough personal set of observations to be able to add anything to the evaluation of the method one way or another. These techniques can be at best a waste of time and at worst actively detrimental. You are incorrectly conflating my desire and strong advocacy for higher standards with me demanding that all hobbyists conform to the highest professional standards. 

 

  • Unlike the scientific community, hobbyists are allowed to establish canon based on anecdotal consensus. That is, unless Reacker can provide scientific evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.

Of course hobbyists are allowed to do this. The problem with them doing this without higher standards is that it has the potential to generate very bad advice that never gets corrected by information from reality. You can end up with an echo chamber where the same unsupported pieces of advice go back and forth between new members with the transmission of these ideas being unrelated to whether or not they actually work. If the goal of keeping ants is to do a good job of keeping ants, then it should be self-evident why it is essential that we verify theory with evidence. This is sorely lacking at the moment for many techniques.

  • The fact that some members of the community seek to profit from commercializing the hobby makes the hobby no less casual or cheap. That's a supply-side fallacy that has no merit in a hobby that can be enjoyed at next to no expense. The hobby allows for a tidy profit for some at best, at least until prices can compete with what people can do on their own with little difficulty.

This one single line was a single semi-joking aside that I threw in based on subjective personal opinion and while you can argue that as a writing style it was not necessary to throw in it has no bearing at all to the main point of my post. That you chose to pick it apart and assume that I am indeed committing this fallacy rather than asking for clarification before making your judgement to an inconsequential series of twelve words indicates that rather than attempting to engage with the subject at hand you have instead decided to ungenerously  assign to me a deficit in basic reasoning skills. Are you so deeply offended and desperate to pick apart my argument that you will grab on to any unrelated words of mine and interpret them in the harshest way possible?

 

  • In regards to sterilization: no side-by-side comparison is necessary. We can thank the scientific community for letting us know that ants (like most organisms) are susceptible to parasites and disease. Sterilization is a reasonable preventative measure with or without the comparative studies suggested.

A side by side comparison is indeed necessary if you are going to advocate for this practice. While it is undeniable that ants and most organisms are as you say susceptible to parasites and disease, there is no evidence that various types of unprocessed media pose an actual threat to a captive ant colony. 

  • Reacker complains that these myths of ant keeping are formed by community consensus within a community with significant turnover and short-term enthusiasm. The only consequence of this is that it takes longer for solid contributors to foster sound consensus. Too bad, so sad. Time takes time. If you want things done more efficiently, pay for it. 

This entire bulletin point is ridiculous. Firstly I am not claiming that these myths are formed by short term enthusiasts, just that they are propagated by short term enthusiasts who cite no evidence and provide only useless anecdotes in support of them. The consequence of this is that you have new members subjecting their usually highly limited supply of queens and colonies to procedures that may be at best innocuous and are at worst actively detrimental to colony success. This is the difference between success and failure hinging on unverified techniques passed around without verification. There are potentially real consequences to this unvetted information, not just more time as you say. The rest of this bulletin point is just....stupid. I don't know how else to describe it. 

  • Reacker complains that even the most successful members of the English-speaking ant-keeping community are plagued with failure, and too often fail to care for a colony for the duration of its natural lifespan. This raises questions:
  • Where is the scientific evidence that demonstrates that this only occurs for the English-speaking community?

I have no idea about other language communities as I don't speak any other languages to a sufficient degree of fluency to make any judgments and as such I have chosen not to do so. 

  • Where is the scientific evidence that demonstrates that most natural ant colonies survive the full duration of a queen's potential lifespan?

I am not claiming that most natural ant colonies survive the full duration of a queen's potential lifespan, nor am I claiming that most captive colonies would survive that full duration either. 

  • Where is the scientific evidence that an undomesticated animal (unlike domesticated animals like cats and dogs) should be expected to achieve its natural lifespan in captivity?

Redundant.

 

  • Given that any myrmecologist will tell you that the vast majority of queens in nature fail to even begin to establish a colony and the fact that every exposed surface of the planet isn't crawling with ants, where is the scientific evidence to suggest that ants have a higher failure rate in captivity?

This point is so confused as to come off as being ingenuous. Queens in nature are subject to a high degree of predation before they reach whatever counts as a secure state where they can begin to raise their first workers. Hobbyist ant keepers capture queens and place them in enclosures that are intended to be the functional equivalent of this secure state. The survival rate of all queens that fly away from a given colony to mate is irrelevant. I am claiming that there is a startling lack of long term journals or other documentation showing that English speaking hobbyists have even a single time managed to raise a colony from a queen of any species under any conditions from colony creation to an age where based on data gathered from the lifespans of wild colonies you could make a fair case that the queen had managed to live to an age that could be considered the natural lifespan of that species. 

 

I fully support arguments for science, but it's hard to get behind an argument built on none of it. 

 
 
You accuse me of committing logical fallacies but nearly your entire post was dedicated to blowing down strawmen. You claim that my argument is built without science but you fail to understand that the burden of proof for a claim (such as an technique being effective) is on the claimant, not the person doubting the claim. You say you support arguments built on science, but I suggest that you spend more time supporting your own personal development of reading comprehension. 

  • dermy, Jonathan21700, Kevin and 2 others like this

#39 Offline thosaka - Posted April 13 2017 - 3:12 PM

thosaka

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

All I do is absorb everything everyone says, and then, experiment them on my own, and decide for myself if it works or not. It's really hard to trust strangers on the internet, so it really is the only way to handle this problem.


  • Barristan, Jonathan21700 and sgheaton like this

#40 Offline Barristan - Posted April 13 2017 - 5:50 PM

Barristan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 884 posts
  • LocationBindlach, Bavaria, Germany

I keep ants because I enjoy watching them and making photographs of them. What I do isn't science.

 

In my opinion the mixture of Myrmecology and ant keeping is frustrating for both sides and a thing you don't see in most pet owner communities. Most of the the stuff ant keepers write about is irrelevant for Myrmecology and most of the papers Myrmecologists publish are irrelevant for ant keeping.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users