There are a lot of papers about ants, and we know a lot about ants, but also there are a LOT of ants and a whole lot to know about them.
Hence, we know a lot about ants but we also don't know much about ants.
If what I've observed holds up it's wild to me that no one has noticed or mentioned that this very common species of ant in the United States is among the smaller club of ants that can produce female workers without mating under certain circumstances.
@AngloPeranakan@futurebird I know, right? Wouldn’t that be exciting? There is this common template for ant reproduction that is assumed to explain how “typical” ants can reproduce. But, what if exceptions to the rule are more common than is generally supposed? The only way to really know is observation of many more species of ants. Even common “roadside weeds” like Dorymyrmex!
Not an ant expert but from what I understand it could be proved by genetic analysis ?
So maybe your first myrmycologist scientific paper is in gestation there ?
@futurebird@AngloPeranakan collect tons of mating flights of queen ants and check for heterozygous/homozogous. dunno how u do that tho... u'd have to check a large enough # of loci to be sure
It seemed like a huge waste to me that this huge thriving colony was done just because the queen died. Granted I accidentally killed her while connecting a tube, but that could have been a rock collapsing in their nest.
They seem to have a way out of this problem.
From the moment the queen was dead the chemistry of the colony changed. Queen ants have pheromones that can prevent workers from laying eggs, but also probably preventing them from raising new queens unless the colony is huge. 2/
What I don't know... and can't think of a way to tell, is if the eggs are laid by the workers or by the new queens or both?
Also when they started raising queens (which I view as a direct response to their queen being dead) did they raise queens that are in some way different from those they'd raise for a nuptial flight?
They have culled a few of the queens they raised, and removed the wings from two.
I will see if I can observe who is laying these eggs (there are more) 3/3
@donkeyherder@futurebird Presumably so they can’t fly away (also it’s more hygienic to be wingless in an enclosed space like a nest) normally queens remove their wings after mating so they can more easily dig a nest. Workers may help if the wings are not removed by the time the first workers arrive.
Yes, according to the standard template for ant reproduction. But there are known exceptions in some species. But as far as I can tell Dorymyrmex (the genus of ants I’m raising and observing) is not on that list of exceptions. This is what I’m so excited about. 😲
That's exactly what it means, this kind of parthenogenesis is called thelytoky and while it's described as "rare" in the lit it's not unheard of in ants.
I'm growing more confident that is has not been observed in this genus, Dorymyrmex. Although I'd like to see one more generation of female workers grow up so I can confirm that there is no possible way these workers were offspring of the dead queen. (she's been dead for over 50 days, it's unlikely already)
I'm also eager to observe what happens to the queens. None of the larvae in production now have grown into more queens (or males) So, I think they raised the queens in response to their queen being dead, the queens laid eggs that produce female workers. They are slowly culling the queens ... I think this is a method of queen replacement.
But with one of their sisters "promoted" to queen... would there be an incentive to ... make this happen genetically?
@futurebird@enby_of_the_apocalypse
it seems to me the workers would have the same genes as the new queen, so if the new queen reproduces, those genes pass on, and thus there's a "genetic incentive" for the workers?