95 replies to this topic

[Canadian anter]

 

You all poke fun at this idea, but I've actually seen the photos from "Robert Fuentalba Ojeda" and he seems to have success mixing different species. His most recent experiment seems to be putting a Lasiophanes sp. with a Camponotus sp. I still doubt that he's able to keep colonies fused for extended periods of time, though.

Yeah, I've seen some of his work with "fused" colonies before as well. I wonder how he managed to accomplish that.

 

Yes me too, but notice how he has never passed subfamily lines, usually remaining in the same genus. Also, notice how he seems to put pupae instead of adult workers so they will not attack the queen and how the queen always belongs to the larger species

[drtrmiller]

The result of introducing ant larvae or pupae to a colony of an entirely different subfamily or genus is, with few exceptions, either that the ants will ignore or eat the introduced brood.

Even for ants belonging to the same genus, incompatible pheromones often result in a failure of the ants to react to certain signals, such as when a cocoon is ready to eclose.

I have personally observed Nearctic Camponotus species rear larvae of other Camponotus species, but then let the pupae die in the cocoon, rather than tear it open.

While I have observed and do not dispute Robert's claims on Facebook with what he is able to do with Neotropical ants, which are often found with a very high species density, the fact remains that there is no known, proven, repeatable method of "fusing" Nearctic ants of different genera or subspecies that do not have an existing parasitic or other relationship in nature.

Edited by drtrmiller, January 16 2017 - 6:57 AM.

[Loops117]

Check this out.

Took this screen shot.

Edited by Loops117, January 16 2017 - 5:48 AM.

[drtrmiller]

While I have observed and do not dispute Robert's claims on Facebook with what he is able to do with Neotropical ants, which are often found with a very high species density, the fact remains that there is no known, proven, repeatable method of "fusing" Nearctic ants of different genera or subspecies that do not have an existing parasitic or other relationship in nature.

Edited by drtrmiller, January 16 2017 - 6:57 AM.

[Batspiderfish]

Is this the same person?

"Fusing" ant species is not a new thing. Sadly it does not confer any benefits upon the colony. All it amounts to is throwing pupae into a habitat with adult ants and hoping they don't get eaten before they eclose. The rest of their life is short.

Edited by Batspiderfish, January 16 2017 - 8:07 AM.

[Loops117]

Is this the same person?

that's the guy that's giving him hand to hand help.

[Batspiderfish]

Ok, so Roberto is not a kid and not new to ants. I would criticize that these colonies with foreign workers are too young call successes, and that the act of mixing them does not prove to confer benefits to the colony greater than their own workers. I also am kind of baffled by the mission to "breed" ants into doing this in the wild, which has no stated goal in mind except to meddle with wild ecology.

Mixing workers of different species or genera together has been done before, but it does nothing for the colony except possibly increase the visual appeal for the keeper. The minority workers usually starve to death or are killed by their nestmates (especially before an event like hibernation). Even with raiding ants which habitually do bring in workers of a different species in the wild will kill off anything too foreign before winter.

And again, if Ricardo is illegally importing Lasius flavus (as implied by the quantity he is ordering and the dubious secrecy) then where is the accountability? Where are the ethics? The scientific community does not get by on blind faith.

[Loops117]

Ok, so Roberto is not a kid and not new to ants. I would criticize that these colonies with foreign workers are too young call successes, and that the act of mixing them does not prove to confer benefits to the colony greater than their own workers. I also am kind of baffled by the mission to "breed" ants into doing this in the wild, which has no stated goal in mind except to meddle with wild ecology.

Mixing workers of different species or genera together has been done before, but it does nothing for the colony except possibly increase the visual appeal for the keeper. The minority workers usually starve to death or are killed by their nestmates (especially before an event like hibernation). Even with raiding ants which habitually do bring in workers of a different species in the wild will kill off anything too foreign before winter.

And again, if Ricardo is illegally importing Lasius flavus (as implied by the quantity he is ordering and the dubious secrecy) then where is the accountability? Where are the ethics? The scientific community does not get by on blind faith.

I don't think he got his ants from Roberto, only just getting his advice from him. Roberto is a known seller though, although i'm not sure if he's willing to break US laws.

 

As for creating new cultures (if you'll accept that phrase), i think it's great for the hobby but not for the wild as it seems as he's hoping to do. He claims that his ants are captive reproduced in a lab which i think is pretty flippen cool.

[Batspiderfish]

Ricardo said he got his Lasius flavus from a woman, but he will not say from where. I haven't seen anybody from California with that many Lasius flavus, so it sounds like they are from off-continent. The commitment to a "importaion/exportation lab" makes it clear to me that Ricardo does not have native ants on the mind.

Also, we need to be really careful how we use the word "culture". There is no evidence nor indication of non-genetic behavior in ants, so to imply that mixing ants of different species has "cultural benefits" has zero objective or scientific basis. Culture is the social transmittance of unique behaviors between peers and generations. Ants have not demonstrated the individual capacity to learn new behaviors, their natural behavior being something we don't even fully understand.

There is no logic in claiming an organism is learning new behaviors from other organisms when we don't know what the old behaviors are. This is something which everybody with native ants has the choice to study, but they want exotic ants to learn nothing about, instead.

[Loops117]

Ricardo said he got his Lasius flavus from a woman, but he will not say from where. I haven't seen anybody from California with that many Lasius flavus, so it sounds like they are from off-continent. The commitment to a "importaion/exportation lab" makes it clear to me that Ricardo does not have native ants on the mind.

Also, we need to be really careful how we use the word "culture". There is no evidence nor indication of non-genetic behavior in ants, so to imply that mixing ants of different species has "cultural benefits" has zero objective or scientific basis. Culture is the social transmittance of unique behaviors between peers and generations. Ants have not demonstrated the individual capacity to learn new behaviors, their natural behavior being something we don't even fully understand.

There is no logic in claiming an organism is learning new behaviors from other organisms when we don't know what the old behaviors are. This is something which everybody with native ants has the choice to study, but they want exotic ants to learn nothing about, instead

But how does native/exotic effect "logic in claiming an organism is learning new behaviors from other organisms". Not every hobbyist that completely abides by the law is going to actually research their species, same with every exotic owner would not study their ants. We can all do research from our own livingroom without it requiring to be native to the area. We can conduct experiments and come up with great findings without having to collect an ant from our own yard. It's already known that we shouldn't re-introduce a captive species back into the wild, even if its the exact same spot we found them in. We're also really not supposed to introduce any living food to our colony to ensure safety of the colony. So since we're completely taking the ants out of any "native" setting they would originally have had, what difference does it make if they're exotic or native.

 

Also, i used the word culture loosely as i couldn't think of a better word to use. Used it the same way as i would say "culturing isopods" or "triggerpod culture".

[Batspiderfish]

Exotic ants have appeal when hobbyists do not know enough about their local ants. This measure of interest is an artificial attempt to invigorate their passion without having to learn anything. The utter vibrancy and complexity of native ants was my reward for observing and researching them.

The scientific process can only be applied with adequate sample sizes and trials to cut out hidden variables in an experiment. People who argue for the importation of ants never plan on buying hundreds of colonies for their "research". Even when they do develop an experiment that will fail because of their unacceptable sample size, they are almost always studying behaviors which would be available en mass if they used their local ants. They absolutely do not care about science -- they just want cool pets to show off. As a result, the only hobbyists which end up being any use at all are the ones who demonstrate curiosity for and proficiency with their local ants.

There is no distinction in the usefulness between native and exotic ants in studying their behavior, but only the motivations behind those who observe them. Besides, the Atta, Oecophylla, Myrmecia, etc. which are illegally smuggled out of their native territories for Western ant keepers are already researched to hell and back (by scientists who earned permission to do so.) God forbid somebody learns anything new about our hundreds of unstudied native species.

[Serafine]

But how does native/exotic effect "logic in claiming an organism is learning new behaviors from other organisms".

It doesn't really matter. In the wild these colonies most likely have nuptial flights at different times or prefer different nesting spaces, so even if you are able to teach them stuff they won't pass it on to the next generation which, unless you combine two species that multiply via satellite colonies, has to start from scratch anyway.
 
 

It's already known that we shouldn't re-introduce a captive species back into the wild, even if its the exact same spot we found them in. We're also really not supposed to introduce any living food to our colony to ensure safety of the colony.

Someone should tell Mikey Bustos and his 400.000 subscribers AntCanada channel which is promoting these exact two behaviors all the time.
 
 

So since we're completely taking the ants out of any "native" setting they would originally have had, what difference does it make if they're exotic or native.

Because even despite any evidence ever it is entirely possible that they break loose and devastate the native biome. Forget all these thousands of freight ship containers, millions of trucks and billions of air mail packages that spread ants to new places even as we speak, it's the supervillian antkeepers we need to deal with before they succeed in destroying our planet...

[Batspiderfish]

Ah yes, the conspiracy of the scientific community oppressing all the poor, desperate ant keepers.

[drtrmiller]

Also, we need to be really careful how we use the word "culture". There is no evidence nor indication of non-genetic behavior in ants, so to imply that mixing ants of different species has "cultural benefits" has zero objective or scientific basis. Culture is the social transmittance of unique behaviors between peers and generations. Ants have not demonstrated the individual capacity to learn new behaviors, their natural behavior being something we don't even fully understand.

There is no logic in claiming an organism is learning new behaviors from other organisms when we don't know what the old behaviors are. This is something which everybody with native ants has the choice to study, but they want exotic ants to learn nothing about, instead.

Well said. Though, I would point out that it may partially be an issue with translation, as Robert does not appear to be a native English speaker. That said, most of his claims on Facebook vary between the fantastic to the absurd. I'm not sure what to think of most of them.

Also, Robert is well-known to ship Chilean ants anywhere in the world in exchange for an unrecoverable Western Union funds transfer. Very concerning stuff going on.

[Loops117]

Exotic ants have appeal when hobbyists do not know enough about their local ants. This measure of interest is an artificial attempt to invigorate their passion without having to learn anything. The utter vibrancy and complexity of native ants was my reward for observing and researching them.

The scientific process can only be applied with adequate sample sizes and trials to cut out hidden variables in an experiment. People who argue for the importation of ants never plan on buying hundreds of colonies for their "research". Even when they do develop an experiment that will fail because of their unacceptable sample size, they are almost always studying behaviors which would be available en mass if they used their local ants. They absolutely do not care about science -- they just want cool pets to show off. As a result, the only hobbyists which end up being any use at all are the ones who demonstrate curiosity for and proficiency with their local ants.

There is no distinction in the usefulness between native and exotic ants in studying their behavior, but only the motivations behind those who observe them. Besides, the Atta, Oecophylla, Myrmecia, etc. which are illegally smuggled out of their native territories for Western ant keepers are already researched to hell and back (by scientists who earned permission to do so.) God forbid somebody learns anything new about our hundreds of unstudied native species.

 

I typed a really long reply and don't feel like submitting it.

[Serafine]

Ah yes, the conspiracy of the scientific community oppressing all the poor, desperate ant keepers.

No, not at all. Just putting things into perspective.
And good luck finding ANY place of terrain in Europe that hasn't been shaped and cultured by human influence for the last TWO THOUSAND years. You might find one waaaaaaaaaaaaaay up in the north where it's so freezing cold that nobody wants to live there anyway (and most likely you'll find "invasive" species even there).

 

In the country where I live (Germany) we have a huge grey parrot colony (in Worms), massive parakeet colonies in several cities (for example in Stuttgart which also has an over hundred years old exotic grey goose colony), raccoons everywhere, wallaby kangaroos jumping through some of our woods (rarely seen though cause they're super shy), rheas aggressively expanding their territories, chinese mandarin ducks all across the country (actually more than live in China where they're threatened by extinction), neonfish and sunfish and dreissina molluscs and even piranhas in our rivers, masses of exotic turtles (actually they're the reptile with the second highest wild population in the ruhrpott area and it's not even confirmed that they can actually reproduce here) and don't get me even started with exotic plants like dandelions, hogweed, corn and potatoes or all the native predators we've entirely annihilated like wolves, bears, vultures, lynxes, etc. etc.

 

And yes, I am against transporting ants over the whole globe as I am against transporting ANY animal across the globe (simply because it's not good for them), but mentioning wild nature and Europe in the same sentence is a joke in itself. There is no nature in Europe, all there is is cultured land (might be different for the US). If we wanted to be serious about preserving nature in Europe we should immediately start murdering all the parrots, parakeets, rheas, chinese ducks, turtles, sunfish and every other exotic animal species we've either accidentally or purposefully imported and tolerate here. Otherwise there's no point in the whole discussion anyway.

Edited by Serafine, January 16 2017 - 1:29 PM.

[Batspiderfish]

Sorry -- I try not to be so inflammatory when bringing up this subject -- but it is frustrating when so many people come to use with questions, ants to identify, and to use all of the resources we create, but when it comes to conservation and local ecology, we're treated like we suddenly don't know what we're talking about. Easing up on an existing problem in order to gratify our vanity or our shallow curiosity is not going to make conservation easier. North America has its own share of nonnative plants and animals, but none of us want things to be any worse than they already are. We don't need to be combated in our efforts to protect what we have, especially when the only positive outcome is allowing entitled children to have a pet they don't need and don't know why they want.

Edited by Batspiderfish, January 16 2017 - 7:25 PM.

[Reacker]

You're wasting your time arguing with Serafine. He has already shown to us that he is perfectly happy to provide to us an endless number of fallacious and factually unsupported justifications in excuse of his self-interested behaviors. 

Edited by Reacker, January 16 2017 - 8:05 PM.

[Serafine]

You're wasting your time arguing with Serafine. He has already shown to us that he is perfectly happy to provide to us an endless number of fallacious and factually unsupported justifications in excuse of his self-interested behaviors. 

Again, I have NEVER said that I support shoving ants across the globe - ants from South America belong as much into Europe as rheas or parakeets from South America do. All I'm saying is that any efforts made there are futile when we tolerate a vast array of exotic species in our biomes that simply do not belong here. It boggles my mind that people are complaining about introducing exotic ants while not already planing to eradicate pests like rose-ringed parakeets, rheas or sunfish which are actively displacing or killing our local species.

 

Btw, I don't care for exotic ants or any other exotic species (actually even less than Mikey from AntsCanada who keeps a breaded dragon from Australia in a country with one of the most ridiculous humidity rates on the globe where these poor things are prone to respiratory infections as they are built for DESERT climates), I can live perfectly fine with my local species. I'm mostly interested in Camponotus and Messor and we have tons of them here. I was originally planing to get a native Camponotus (probably herculeanus or vagus) but then got a small starting colony offered from someone who ordered one and got two and looked for someone to take it as she couldn't care for two colonies. So sorry I got this super exotic Camponotus species that is native just two countries away and has been spotted even just one country away (where it, at least in the southern parts, might even have been native before the entire area got completely nuked by two competing Argentine supercolonies).

Also if you'd be serious about this whole thing here several forums members actively promoting species imports from all over the globe to the US should have been banned long ago. I think we all know exactly to which people I'm referring.

Edited by Serafine, January 16 2017 - 11:18 PM.

[Reacker]

This line of reasoning has already been thoroughly addressed and rejected in a previous thread where you were found to be entirely unable to defend your positions. Please stop embarrassing yourself by shoving your wilful ignorance into our faces.

Edited by Reacker, January 16 2017 - 11:33 PM.