64 replies to this topic

[YsTheAnt]

Now, proof that what nurbs sells is misidentified. Information from a known illegal antkeeper is not to be trusted, Mr. cheetolord. So we will need pictures. Thank you for the PSA though, I am sure you are not the dishonest type, out to try and slander a well respected antkeeper because you might want to take his client base to sell illegally, or anything.

I don't like to participate in this drama but I must say this, just because someone has "traded" (brought back ants he caught) illegally doesnt automatically make everything they say false. To add to this, CheetoLord does not sell any non native ants. All of his ants as of right now are collected in and native to the state of AZ (where he lives). Everyone here acts like trading illegally is worse than murdering someone and that shipping is unethical. Participating in illegal trading is legally and morally wrong for the sole reason of it being illegal, sure ill give you that. But acting like illegal traders are going to get the antkeeping hobby as a whole banned is just idiotic.

Its not. The more the government sees this hobby becoming a legal concern, the more likely they are to enforce additional regulation. Its just a logical fact, the only idiocy here would be denying that.

In regards to pets in general, history has shown that agricultural authorities won’t hesitate to crack down on anything they would like to crack down on, regardless of whether they legally have the power to or not (which is a huge problem in on itself, but not one that such a niche hobby can do anything about for now). By illegally trading you are inadvertently making ant keeping a target of this.

Not trying to turn this into an illegal trading thread, but if we are going to be talking about ethical sellers as Cheeto and 500miles have been, then we need to take into account the ethics and credibility of the accuser. Their actions are not only illegal and unethical at principle, they put the hobby itself in danger.

And yet they have the audacity to try and accuse respectable, well intentioned ant keepers of scamming and unethical dealings.

Shameful.

[TechAnt]

-voided-

Edited by TechAnt, August 8 2020 - 10:00 PM.

[PogoQueen]

Your motives are transparent, and the proof of your claim that the Fragilis people sell in California of being something else, non existent. If you can offer proof in the future please do.

[Otter]

Now, proof that what nurbs sells is misidentified. Information from a known illegal antkeeper is not to be trusted, Mr. cheetolord. So we will need pictures. Thank you for the PSA though, I am sure you are not the dishonest type, out to try and slander a well respected antkeeper because you might want to take his client base to sell illegally, or anything.

I don't like to participate in this drama but I must say this, just because someone has "traded" (brought back ants he caught) illegally doesnt automatically make everything they say false. To add to this, CheetoLord does not sell any non native ants. All of his ants as of right now are collected in and native to the state of AZ (where he lives). Everyone here acts like trading illegally is worse than murdering someone and that shipping is unethical. Participating in illegal trading is legally and morally wrong for the sole reason of it being illegal, sure ill give you that. But acting like illegal traders are going to get the antkeeping hobby as a whole banned is just idiotic.

Its not. The more the government sees this hobby becoming a legal concern, the more likely they are to enforce additional regulation. Its just a logical fact, the only idiocy here would be denying that.
In regards to pets in general, history has shown that agricultural authorities won’t hesitate to crack down on anything they would like to crack down on, regardless of whether they legally have the power to or not (which is a huge problem in on itself, but not one that such a niche hobby can do anything about for now). By illegally trading you are inadvertently making ant keeping a target of this.
Not trying to turn this into an illegal trading thread, but if we are going to be talking about ethical sellers as Cheeto and 500miles have been, then we need to take into account the ethics and credibility of the accuser. Their actions are not only illegal and unethical at principle, they put the hobby itself in danger.
And yet they have the audacity to try and accuse respectable, well intentioned ant keepers of scamming and unethical dealings.
Shameful.

The only thing the government sees as potentially harmful is introducing non native species, their parasites, and their diseases which is why moving ants across state lines is banned. This system has many issues as well, like the fact that Cali antkeepers can move ants from the mexican border to the same latitude as southern Massachusetts. Those issues are signifigantly more likely to be addressed. Many people have traded ants illegally for years, yet the USDA simply does not care, nor has the USDA added any more regulations on antkeeping. In fact, the opposite happened! As you know, pogonomyrmex occidentallis was added to a list of animals that do not require a permit to be transported over state lines. Just a btw, I do not participate in illegal trading.

[Ltislander]

inshallah

[ArmansAnts]

Your motives are transparent, and the proof of your claim that the Fragilis people sell in California of being something else, non existent. If you can offer proof in the future please do.

The only motives are to inform people about the species they are keeping, and there is nothing to prove otherwise. If you are going to continue on with this post, please actually talk about how his proof is wrong, instead of just continually saying it is and asking for more.

[YsTheAnt]

You may not know the history behind this, I don’t blame you. While I am not sure of the specifics, I recall that some time ago certain laws were put into place by the USDA or another authority that would restrict certain aspects of the reptile hobby.

This was done without any concrete research, evidence, or proof of effectiveness.

It took a vast amount of time, effort, and money from a hobby as large as the reptile hobby to bring these laws to court and prove that the legislation put in place had no place, and that such legislation was unwarranted and an overextension of government power.

If this has happened in the past, do we really want to risk it happening to our hobby in the future? We have seen the authorities act unpredictably and harshly on hobbies in the past. Do we, the ant keeping community want that to happen to us? Because a hobby so small will crumble if such legislation is put in place.

[PogoQueen]

Proof would be: “I bought this colony from a seller in Cali, and it was not fragilis as they claimed, but something else. Here are pictures of the queen I bought, and excerpts from taxonomists description of this species”. Pictures please.

[sirjordanncurtis]

>Camponotus fragilis and Camponotus absquatulator are pretty much identical

If this was the truth, C. absquatulator would have been classified as a subspecies of C. fragilis prior to 2006, however they were not, and were instead a subspecies of C. festinatus. Furthermore, they are easily identified in the majors, which anybody who has ever identified a polymorphic species would know is generally the case. C. fragilis majors have hairs all up the sides of the head, where C. absquatulator majors lack these hairs.

>In addition, if you look on antmaps, C. fragilis are in fact abundantly in California. 
Clearly you did not read my entire post. I clearly explained why this is the case. "One thing that may get brought up is that Camponotus absquatulator has far fewer records on Antmaps.org in California than C. fragilis does. However, this is easily explained, since C. absquatulator was only described in 2006, where Camponotus fragilis were described in 1893. They've had just a bit more time to build up records and be more well-documented."

>Even if you are questioning the ants you currently have, I don't think there is really a need to do so because they pretty much behave the same way and look the exact same, except for a few tiny hairs. 
While I currently do not keep either species, I have sent dead specimens of the workers (majors and minors) in my area to FC user AnthonyP163, and he confirmed they were true C. fragilis, which makes sense, as I am located in central Arizona.

A few more differences to note:

 

Major workers of fragilis have hair going up the sides of the head; absquatulator does not. 

 

Both fragilis minors and absquatulator have hair between their antennae. C. fragilis tend to have shorter hairs on the face than absquatulator.

Even the paper you linked says this:

"The queens and major workers are readily distinguished from all others in the complex by the absence of erect setae behind the level of the anterior margin of the eyes. Those setae that are present are usually confined to the anterior one-half of the malar area. In minor workers the malar area is commonly devoid of erect setae or with up to 3 on each side that are situated near the base of the mandible."
 

>the festinatus complex Carpenter ants that I bought from nurbs were C. fragilis, indicated by these hairs between the antennal scapes, which absquatulator lacks.
You may want to check this again.

The only valid point brought up is the size of C. absquatulator queens mentioned, as I could not find any mention of size apart from "smaller than C. festinatus." It is probable that C. absquatulator queens are larger than I assumed, however I still doubt that C. fragilis in California are miraculously 3-4mm smaller than those in AZ, when C. absquatulator has been proven to be more common in California than the former.

 

 

I want to firstly make something clear. The main sellers of Camponotus fragilis are nurbs and dspdrew. They have both done their own work: taking microscope shots of their ants to prove that they are C. fragilis. Even if that wasn't clear enough for you, I also posted my own pictures. The reason I cited the paper was so that you could actually do concrete research into identifying the ants, because it seems like you are just using anecdotal experiences and taking pictures out of context when they don't mean anything. 

 

The paper I linked has a very specific section where it distinguishes the differences between fragilis and absquatulator. I chose this section in particular because it gives details that can actually be easily seen through a microscope. 

 

"Camponotus fragilis is similar to C. absquatulator sp.n. in color and stature, but does possess erect setae along the entire head margin; in minor workers these setae may be sparse, but there are always at least 2 or 3 between the level of the eyes and the posterolateral angles of the head." 

 

This distinction is more than explaining differences between shorter and longer hairs on the gynes. This specifically looks at the minors and says that fragilis minors will have a few sparse hairs between their eyes (at the top of their head, which was the location I indicated before) but that absquatulator do not. This is CONCRETE proof against your claim there are no C. fragilis in California and it also explains that the queen I obtained from nurbs was also C. fragilis.

 

In addition, it's not a "proof" that absquatulator are more common in California than fragilis. These are observations made by a myrmecologist. However, he also made a key, and following that key, I found out that my ants were in fact fragilis, and not absquatulator. We can not solely cite locations as our proof because people can be wrong. That's why we often have to rely on evidence right in front of our eyes, in addition to a few maps. 

 

I will concur that I made a mistake about antmaps regarding C. fragilis. There was a new update, and I seem to have missed when they took it out of all the sightings in California. My point still stands that if we key out an ant to a specific species, and not the other, then u can't just rely on maps. 

 

I completely believe you that 15mm fragilis exist. My own C. fragilis are around 12-13mm when they are not physogastric. As I said before, their gasters can expand, and they can easily become 15mm. Measurements should be taken lightly when they are not done under the same conditions. Here's a picture of my queen next to a ruler. She is not physogastric and measures around 12mm. If you would like to contest my claim that fragilis can be between 12-15mm, I suggest you bring up clear evidence of gyne pictures for your own measurements.

 

Just because two ants are nearly morphologically identical to the naked eye, doesn't mean they're the same species. They had different reproductive pools due to a geographic separation, and now they're different species. What I am pointing out is that the distinction is very minute, and it's not worth calling people out for lying about their ants, especially when they have proven that their ants are actually what they say they are.

 

The workers you sent might be C. fragilis, but the workers I took pictures of were ALSO C. fragilis. You completely discounted my identification, where I included clear pictures of the workers with the erect setae between their eyes. 

[ArmansAnts]

You may not know the history behind this, I don’t blame you. While I am not sure of the specifics, I recall that some time ago certain laws were put into place by the USDA or another authority that would restrict certain aspects of the reptile hobby.

This was done without any concrete research, evidence, or proof of effectiveness.

It took a vast amount of time, effort, and money from a hobby as large as the reptile hobby to bring these laws to court and prove that the legislation put in place had no place, and that such legislation was unwarranted and an overextension of government power.

If this has happened in the past, do we really want to risk it happening to our hobby in the future? We have seen the authorities act unpredictably and harshly on hobbies in the past. Do we, the ant keeping community want that to happen to us? Because a hobby so small will crumble if such legislation is put in place.

Can you show us? And again, this should never have been turned into an illegal post. Cheeto's arguments were thrown down the trash in favor of trying to antagonize him and magically delete his evidence.

[sirjordanncurtis]

 

You may not know the history behind this, I don’t blame you. While I am not sure of the specifics, I recall that some time ago certain laws were put into place by the USDA or another authority that would restrict certain aspects of the reptile hobby.

This was done without any concrete research, evidence, or proof of effectiveness.

It took a vast amount of time, effort, and money from a hobby as large as the reptile hobby to bring these laws to court and prove that the legislation put in place had no place, and that such legislation was unwarranted and an overextension of government power.

If this has happened in the past, do we really want to risk it happening to our hobby in the future? We have seen the authorities act unpredictably and harshly on hobbies in the past. Do we, the ant keeping community want that to happen to us? Because a hobby so small will crumble if such legislation is put in place.

Can you show us? And again, this should never have been turned into an illegal post. Cheeto's arguments were thrown down the trash in favor of trying to antagonize him and magically delete his evidence.

 

 

No one is trying to delete his evidence. All he said was that people were selling fragilis when they weren't. He brought up no evidence to support this claim. The only thing he actually showed was that the ants he caught himself were C. fragilis. That evidence doesn't in any way connect to his claim. 

[sirjordanncurtis]

>When the species C. absquatulator and C. microps were described (By Dr. Snelling), the westernmost ranges for both didn’t even extend beyond the borders of Arizona.
Really? Because the paper describing C. absquatulator says this:
"Two smaller species in this complex are found at lower elevations west of the range of C. festinatus: C. fragilis and C. absquatulator sp.n. The latter is limited to the Sonoran Desert portions of southern California."
Furthermore, Antmaps.org further supports my point. C. absquatulator has 15 records in CA and 1 in AZ. C. fragilis has 22 records in CA and 201 in AZ. It is far more likely that I have fragilis and you have absquatulator, regardless of size.
"United States, Mexico. Camponotus fragilis occurs over most of the Lower California peninsula as far north on the Gulf of California coast at least to Bahía de los Angeles and northwest into southern California via San Diego County. It is also present on most, if not all, the islands of the Gulf of California and in the State of Sonora and north into Arizona (Tempe, Maricopa Co.,)"
This quote shows that they are hardly present north of the Mexican border in the far west, and only extend north into eastern CA and AZ.

>What you are saying is that not only is every person that ID’ed their ants as Camponotus fragilis in Southern California is wrong, but that Dr. Snelling’s descriptions of Camponotus festinatus’ size and both C. festinatus and C. microps range were false as well.

 

 

 

 

It is CLEAR that sellers from California have looked at this issue before and willfully ignored it. This is unacceptable in my eyes. Even if the populations of both species in California are nearly identical, willingly selling a colony as a species that they are not is wholly dishonest.

>All this based upon one ID off of a key that was most likely based off of Dr. Snellings work, which you have presumed is false anyway.
I've been using this key just as much as you guys have been. I wouldn't be quoting it if I though it was false.

 

 

Hello. The Jordan in your screenshots was me. The reason I said that was because fraggles is a way better name. Sure I'll refer to them as absquatulator if I ID them as it, but fraggles is just way easier to type. It does not in any way reflect my sentiments about how people are IDing ants and that we are okay with selling ants that we have not IDed correctly. 

 

Frankly I'm also a little pissed that you took my comments out of context. Our discord server is supposed to be a lighthearted environment of discussion, and trying to reinforce your argument with random pictures of conversations in order to insult other people and call them liars is just called being a dick. 

 

Please don't assert that people are willingly lying for their own benefit. Everyone has done research to the best of their abilities, and we take selling our ants very seriously. 

[ArmansAnts]

 

 

You may not know the history behind this, I don’t blame you. While I am not sure of the specifics, I recall that some time ago certain laws were put into place by the USDA or another authority that would restrict certain aspects of the reptile hobby.

This was done without any concrete research, evidence, or proof of effectiveness.

It took a vast amount of time, effort, and money from a hobby as large as the reptile hobby to bring these laws to court and prove that the legislation put in place had no place, and that such legislation was unwarranted and an overextension of government power.

If this has happened in the past, do we really want to risk it happening to our hobby in the future? We have seen the authorities act unpredictably and harshly on hobbies in the past. Do we, the ant keeping community want that to happen to us? Because a hobby so small will crumble if such legislation is put in place.

Can you show us? And again, this should never have been turned into an illegal post. Cheeto's arguments were thrown down the trash in favor of trying to antagonize him and magically delete his evidence.

 

 

No one is trying to delete his evidence. All he said was that people were selling fragilis when they weren't. He brought up no evidence to support this claim. The only thing he actually showed was that the ants he caught himself were C. fragilis. That evidence doesn't in any way connect to his claim. 

 

Cheeto clearly provided evidence for his claim in the first few posts. Saying "He brought up no evidence to support this claim" means absolutely nothing when he literally did did. This is exactly what I mean by "deleting evidence." Actually disprove him instead of ignoring the evidence. 

[CheetoLord02]

 

 

Hello. The Jordan in your screenshots was me. The reason I said that was because fraggles is a way better name. Sure I'll refer to them as absquatulator if I ID them as it, but fraggles is just way easier to type. It does not in any way reflect my sentiments about how people are IDing ants and that we are okay with selling ants that we have not IDed correctly. 

 

Frankly I'm also a little pissed that you took my comments out of context. Our discord server is supposed to be a lighthearted environment of discussion, and trying to reinforce your argument with random pictures of conversations in order to insult other people and call them liars is just called being a dick. 

 

Please don't assert that people are willingly lying for their own benefit. Everyone has done research to the best of their abilities, and we take selling our ants very seriously. 

 

 

>Hello. The Jordan in your screenshots was me. 
Yeah, I know. Your reasoning for choosing to call all yellow Camponotus "fraggles" is whatever. I couldn't care less, as long as you don't willfully sell them as a species that they are not.

>Frankly I'm also a little pissed that you took my comments out of context.
The screenshots I posted were not meant to be directed at anybody involved, rather simply to show that this had been discussed before and just brushed under the rug

>Our discord server is supposed to be a lighthearted environment of discussion
-_- sure

>Please don't assert that people are willingly lying for their own benefit. Everyone has done research to the best of their abilities, and we take selling our ants very seriously. 
I know that people sell ants very seriously. I am the same way. However, I ALWAYS make sure to sell my species as the species that they actually are. It has shown that you have done research and ignored it outright. It is true that it doesn't affect me at all, but seeing that this information has been willfully ignored in the past is just disappointing. Again, if you want to refer to your own colonies as "fraggles" you can do so no matter what species they are. I don't care if you call Pogonomyrmex "fraggles." But when it comes to selling them, it is your responsibility as a seller to accurately label your product, no matter what that product is.

I genuinely appreciate your contributions to this post. You are the only person to actually provide real evidence against my claims, which is the sign of a healthy discussion. You didn't simply dismiss me as an "illegal trader", but instead formulated well thought out responses to my posts. So thank you for actually contributing to this discussion properly.

[PogoQueen]

Please prove your claims with picture evidence that what California sellers collect and sell, are not fragilis but something else. You did not give any evidence of that. If you cannot do that, come back here when you can.

[FuzzyJunior]

Hi OP and anyone else reading my reply.

First off, I'd like to establish I'm fairly new to this hobby and I will not pretend as if I know nearly as much as many of the people who have written replies to this thread thus far when it comes to myrmecology and taxonomy in general. So I will not comment on that as its not my place.

That being said, I'm a bit upset about what I've seen on this thread. Everyone part of this community is a human being whether we like it or not. If I've learned anything while living on this planet its that we all make mistakes. We can certainly avoid mistakes to the best of our ability but it still happens. So if one person made an ID mistake, is it truly room for such discussion and intense accusations? Since I believe you referenced one seller in particular, how do you think they are feeling at the moment? Personally, if I were the one being targeted through this thread, I would be a bit upset and rightfully so. We can strive for perfection all we'd like but ultimately we'll never meet it and it's concerning that this situation was blown increasingly out of proportion. 

">Our discord server is supposed to be a lighthearted environment of discussion
-_- sure"

This comment was quite unnecessary and untrue. As aforementioned, I am new to this wonderful hobby and every single member of the chat you screenshotted has been unmistakably kind and helpful to me. That chat has developed a sense of comradery yet they're also very open to new people joining the conversation. The members of this "California chat" have developed quite a community and tend to make jokes, as most friends do. If you think that is unusual I must admit you've baffled me there. 

TL;DR: We make mistakes, and it is far from the end of the world. Was it necessary to create a huge thread about a situation that could have been easily settled in a DM? The California community is quite amazing and I'm not a fan of any negative talk about them nor should anyone be. 
 

[Vendayn]

Please prove your claims with picture evidence that what California sellers collect and sell, are not fragilis but something else. You did not give any evidence of that. If you cannot do that, come back here when you can.

its actually on the seller to prove what they are selling, not the buyer. Though I know nurbs isn't going around scamming people, nor Drew. And at least for Drew, he at least sells them as the species name which I imagine Nurbs does too.

 

Either way, its kinda weird to make such a big deal about some little hairs of what is pretty much the same species. They don't even behave differently or look different. And no ones going to look at tiny microscopic hair.

Edited by Vendayn, August 9 2020 - 12:09 AM.

[TechAnt]

Hi OP and anyone else reading my reply.
First off, I'd like to establish I'm fairly new to this hobby and I will not pretend as if I know nearly as much as many of the people who have written replies to this thread thus far when it comes to myrmecology and taxonomy in general. So I will not comment on that as its not my place.
That being said, I'm a bit upset about what I've seen on this thread. Everyone part of this community is a human being whether we like it or not. If I've learned anything while living on this planet its that we all make mistakes. We can certainly avoid mistakes to the best of our ability but it still happens. So if one person made an ID mistake, is it truly room for such discussion and intense accusations? Since I believe you referenced one seller in particular, how do you think they are feeling at the moment? Personally, if I were the one being targeted through this thread, I would be a bit upset and rightfully so. We can strive for perfection all we'd like but ultimately we'll never meet it and it's concerning that this situation was blown increasingly out of proportion.
">Our discord server is supposed to be a lighthearted environment of discussion-_- sure"This comment was quite unnecessary and untrue. As aforementioned, I am new to this wonderful hobby and every single member of the chat you screenshotted has been unmistakably kind and helpful to me. That chat has developed a sense of comradery yet they're also very open to new people joining the conversation. The members of this "California chat" have developed quite a community and tend to make jokes, as most friends do. If you think that is unusual I must admit you've baffled me there.
TL;DR: We make mistakes, and it is far from the end of the world. Was it necessary to create a huge thread about a situation that could have been easily settled in a DM? The California community is quite amazing and I'm not a fan of any negative talk about them nor should anyone be.

This is basically what I’m saying, but nobody seems to care what I say when trying to mediate lol.
Unfortunately along with the community we built, some people here are a little touchy on certain subjects.

Guys listen to Fuzzy, he has a good point.

Edited by TechAnt, August 9 2020 - 12:15 AM.

[rbarreto]

Something similar happens in the north east too. People see black formica and immediately call it Formica subsericea, completely ignoring the 5 or 6 other possibilities.

Luckily there's been a nice trend of IDing formica by their groups instead of blindly guessing a species.

[11.11.00]

 

Your motives are transparent, and the proof of your claim that the Fragilis people sell in California of being something else, non existent. If you can offer proof in the future please do.

The only motives are to inform people about the species they are keeping, and there is nothing to prove otherwise. If you are going to continue on with this post, please actually talk about how his proof is wrong, instead of just continually saying it is and asking for more.

 

I really don't know why people are so attached to this. Because frankly, it doesn't matter whether they are fraggles or not because as long as they are not transported across state lines, and not being hybridized the nitpicking differences in amounts of hair really do not matter. I don't get why anybody is immoral for selling a species as something it is not, especially since there is a history of species being sold in this manner. In fact, the taxonomy of ants is relatively straightforward compared to the taxonomy of many arachnids where people genuinely do not know what they have and it matters a lot more because these arachnids are being hybridized once misidentified. Just recently, the hobby staple Brachypelma Smithii was reclassified to the smaller less desirable Brachypelma Hamorii, yet we still have many vendors classifying them as either. Similarly, it is likely that the Scolopendra Gigantea and Galapagoensis we have in this hobby is not the true gigantea and galapagoensis we have at all, yet most serious centipede enthusiasts are still willing to pay over 200 for the imposter. If one doesn't know what specimen they have, a simple cf will do for example Camponotus cf. Fragilis. 

 

In order to settle this, we need an expert with qualifications to examine the holotype specimens and also the disputed specimens. There is nothing a layman has the authority to do.