Interesting, I suppose it can work because male hymenopterans (ants, bees and wasps) are haploid, so the queen doesn't need two copies of the "foreign" genes to produce a male of the other species but just one copy, the one that she coincidentally got from a male from this foreign species. So the female can produce a male from another species without worrying about incompatibility with her own genes (apart from mitochondria).
However it does mean that the male clone has to develop directly from a sperm cell from its father (and the mitochondria from the ant queen) rather than an ovum, or am I wrong?
Embryos devoid of maternal DNA have been observed in other groups, with the fertilization of non-nucleate ovules or the elimination of the maternal genome after fertilization.
So the ovum is probably still involved, just without its own nuclear DNA (except when producing diploid workers).
…suggesting we need to rethink our understanding of species barriers.
Have we ever really defined species barriers? It seems to be driven more by tradition than anything else.
The vagueries of speciation has been especially exploitable by the conservatism/YIMBYism movement, where a trait common in one region but uncommon in others can be used to declare a common unthreatened animal as an endangered species, despite a lack of genetic divergence. It would be like declaring uncommonly red-haired Irish as not just an ethnicity but a separate species.
My favorite example of vagueries in species differentiation is a study that found only 13 genes that reliably differ between domestic cats and European and Near Eastern wildcats. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1410083111) It really brings into question what domestication even is, considering that housecats are perfectly capable of supporting themselves outside of areas inhabited by humans. Their lack of differentiation from wildcats means that they can easily become invasive species in areas where they are introduced by humans.
It's impossible for a species to be invasive to its native land, but Poland has managed to simultaneously consider a group of animals with a mere bakers dozen of genes differentiating them, none of which hinder their ability to interbreed, as both "currently threatened with extinction in their natural habitat" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6749728/) and an "invasive alien species" (https://apnews.com/article/science-poland-wildlife-cats-bird...).
It's fairly easy to make definitions, and there are several. The real problem is that many biologists for many decades have been confused about whether we are attempting to make pragmatic definitions or whether we are uncovering "true answers" regarding biological discontinuities. It might not seem that bad if you don't consider geographic separation, but when you do, the literature turns into a total mess. The truth is, though it's unpalatable to many, that there's nothing about biological science that implies that the question "are these two geographically disjunct populations members of the same species?" has any particular answer.
Species boundaries are typically defined by the inability of organisms from either side to mate and produce fertile offspring. There are many problems with that, especially in cases like ring species and species complexes, but there's certainly no accepted interpretation that would allow you to declare red-haired Irish people a separate species.
>we mapped Illumina raw sequences from a pool of four wildcat individuals [two European wildcats (F. s. silvestris) and two Eastern wildcats (F. s. lybica)].
And the second article talks about the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). It looks like they are very different species (same genus in the first, but only same family in the second). I do not really know how cat classification works, so maybe I miss some basic knowledge of the Felidae?
Technologically, dogs and wolves are the same species, but we can't let dogs replace the niche that was occupied by wolves.
I'm not an expert on the subject (nor on philosophy), but I can't think of any examples of behaviour being relevant in species definition. Humans ourselves being a good example, that we are the same species regardless of which country/culture we're in, regardless of whether we have a disability that makes us non verbal, or... any other differences, really.
There are some examples in insects. They display courtship behavior at different moments in a day; this is good enough to make these two groups of flies/mosquitoes (I forget which one) do not mate with each other. If there are not more accidents, the mating will gradually become impossible in the future.
I've always seen it from this perspective:
If two animals can mate and produce an offspring that it will also be able to reproduce and be fertile than they are member of the same species. This is condition is sufficient but not necessary.
(ex a donkey and a horse can mate but will produce a mule which is sterile and so in my classification donkeys and horses are not anymore the same species).
So given the cloned male ants in turn mate with the queen they were all along the same species.
This is different, the queens mate with two different types of males. Ibericus to produce new fertile queens and structor to produce infertile workers.
Not a biologist but IIRC, male ants develop from unfertilized eggs (and are 'haploid'), and the sperm has no role in the production of male ants. Any fertilized egg produces a female ant. This would proably mean that the queen has means to produce two kinds of eggs, which is quite interesting.
The article personifies things a couple times and I always wonder about the actual mechanics when people do that.
It mentions selfish queen genes and how the DNA from the male of the species "ensures its propagation by applying pressure to larvae to be queens rather than infertile females." Does it then? The DNA is there in the egg whispering, "do it, cheat, you'd be an amazing queen, doooo itt"?
They write that the queen must use sperm from another species that it has stored to circumvent that. So the queen is thinking, "ah, pesky sneaky DNA, cheating. Here, I'll just let out, from my sperm storage organ where I store a bunch of sperm all mixed up, only sperm from another species, that'll teach that pesky DNA!"
The article uses terms that are known to biologists which can be easily searched for.
There are genes called "selfish genes" which cause a negative impact on the organism. Normally they would be selected out by evolution, but the "selfish" part means the gene is propagated to descendant organisms far more often than a regular gene would be. There are several mechanisms that can cause this, wikipedia has a summary.
In this case the ants have a "selfish gene" which greatly increases the probability of an egg being a queen, which makes it much harder for the colony to thrive.
As for the mixing of the species? You'd need a time travel machine to find out for sure, but the researchers noted that the species live in proximity and do mate together when in the same area. This would allow the queen to produce the needed workers. Evolution drove forward and somehow created a mechanism that allowed the ants to maintain the DNA required independent from the origin species. That's what the researchers are looking for now.
In that case the article refers to the ant birthing members of another species, the word 'clone' is a bit weird here, but it is totally different from humands cloning cows, as the cloned cow is still birthed by a cow. The other species 'cloned' by the and is not a cloned individual, just another member of that species, but birthed by another, i suppose "researchers discover xenoparity in hairy ants" isn't very good science communication
Interesting, I suppose it can work because male hymenopterans (ants, bees and wasps) are haploid, so the queen doesn't need two copies of the "foreign" genes to produce a male of the other species but just one copy, the one that she coincidentally got from a male from this foreign species. So the female can produce a male from another species without worrying about incompatibility with her own genes (apart from mitochondria).
However it does mean that the male clone has to develop directly from a sperm cell from its father (and the mitochondria from the ant queen) rather than an ovum, or am I wrong?
The paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09425-w says:
Embryos devoid of maternal DNA have been observed in other groups, with the fertilization of non-nucleate ovules or the elimination of the maternal genome after fertilization.
So the ovum is probably still involved, just without its own nuclear DNA (except when producing diploid workers).
The vagueries of speciation has been especially exploitable by the conservatism/YIMBYism movement, where a trait common in one region but uncommon in others can be used to declare a common unthreatened animal as an endangered species, despite a lack of genetic divergence. It would be like declaring uncommonly red-haired Irish as not just an ethnicity but a separate species.
My favorite example of vagueries in species differentiation is a study that found only 13 genes that reliably differ between domestic cats and European and Near Eastern wildcats. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1410083111) It really brings into question what domestication even is, considering that housecats are perfectly capable of supporting themselves outside of areas inhabited by humans. Their lack of differentiation from wildcats means that they can easily become invasive species in areas where they are introduced by humans.
It's impossible for a species to be invasive to its native land, but Poland has managed to simultaneously consider a group of animals with a mere bakers dozen of genes differentiating them, none of which hinder their ability to interbreed, as both "currently threatened with extinction in their natural habitat" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6749728/) and an "invasive alien species" (https://apnews.com/article/science-poland-wildlife-cats-bird...).
> Have we ever really defined species barriers?
It's fairly easy to make definitions, and there are several. The real problem is that many biologists for many decades have been confused about whether we are attempting to make pragmatic definitions or whether we are uncovering "true answers" regarding biological discontinuities. It might not seem that bad if you don't consider geographic separation, but when you do, the literature turns into a total mess. The truth is, though it's unpalatable to many, that there's nothing about biological science that implies that the question "are these two geographically disjunct populations members of the same species?" has any particular answer.
Species boundaries are typically defined by the inability of organisms from either side to mate and produce fertile offspring. There are many problems with that, especially in cases like ring species and species complexes, but there's certainly no accepted interpretation that would allow you to declare red-haired Irish people a separate species.
From the first article:
>we mapped Illumina raw sequences from a pool of four wildcat individuals [two European wildcats (F. s. silvestris) and two Eastern wildcats (F. s. lybica)].
And the second article talks about the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). It looks like they are very different species (same genus in the first, but only same family in the second). I do not really know how cat classification works, so maybe I miss some basic knowledge of the Felidae?
Technologically, dogs and wolves are the same species, but we can't let dogs replace the niche that was occupied by wolves.
This question is not directed at your example specifically: is there something beyond genetics that can make a species?
My reasoning is: I’ve seen animals lose some of their species’ behavior when separated from their parents too early (for puppies and kittens).
They end up missing behaviors and abilities that seem to be passed generationally rather than innate.
If this is the case, isn’t there something lost when a species is only kept alive domesticated or in zoos? Even if later reintroduced to the wild.
I'm not an expert on the subject (nor on philosophy), but I can't think of any examples of behaviour being relevant in species definition. Humans ourselves being a good example, that we are the same species regardless of which country/culture we're in, regardless of whether we have a disability that makes us non verbal, or... any other differences, really.
There are some examples in insects. They display courtship behavior at different moments in a day; this is good enough to make these two groups of flies/mosquitoes (I forget which one) do not mate with each other. If there are not more accidents, the mating will gradually become impossible in the future.
Species are a leaky abstraction. If species worked 100% of the time - evolution would stop.
Evolution and biology works on individuals. Species is just a simplification.
And they say there’s no innovation in Europe!
On a serious note: this is a very interesting read, thanks for sharing.
Chimera Ant Arc?
It's telling that my first reaction to this was fear. We watch the same shows
I've always seen it from this perspective: If two animals can mate and produce an offspring that it will also be able to reproduce and be fertile than they are member of the same species. This is condition is sufficient but not necessary.
(ex a donkey and a horse can mate but will produce a mule which is sterile and so in my classification donkeys and horses are not anymore the same species).
So given the cloned male ants in turn mate with the queen they were all along the same species.
This is different, the queens mate with two different types of males. Ibericus to produce new fertile queens and structor to produce infertile workers.
mules are not always sterile
Also, mules are the result of a male donkey and a female horse. The other version (male horse and female donkey) is called a hinny in English. They have different characteristics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny
For those who prefer video version :
The Ants That Broke Biology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-O4_AwWpfI
Why couldn't it be that the Queen had stored sperm from Males of both species?
Not a biologist but IIRC, male ants develop from unfertilized eggs (and are 'haploid'), and the sperm has no role in the production of male ants. Any fertilized egg produces a female ant. This would proably mean that the queen has means to produce two kinds of eggs, which is quite interesting.
Yes, but normally those males are genetic clones of the mother, and couldn’t be a different species.
a rather stunning reminder that all taxonomies are cultural products, useful conceptually but not inviolable
Has some infested terran vibes
That's Cordyceps/Ophiocordyceps.
The article personifies things a couple times and I always wonder about the actual mechanics when people do that.
It mentions selfish queen genes and how the DNA from the male of the species "ensures its propagation by applying pressure to larvae to be queens rather than infertile females." Does it then? The DNA is there in the egg whispering, "do it, cheat, you'd be an amazing queen, doooo itt"?
They write that the queen must use sperm from another species that it has stored to circumvent that. So the queen is thinking, "ah, pesky sneaky DNA, cheating. Here, I'll just let out, from my sperm storage organ where I store a bunch of sperm all mixed up, only sperm from another species, that'll teach that pesky DNA!"
Like what is actually happening in reality?
The article uses terms that are known to biologists which can be easily searched for.
There are genes called "selfish genes" which cause a negative impact on the organism. Normally they would be selected out by evolution, but the "selfish" part means the gene is propagated to descendant organisms far more often than a regular gene would be. There are several mechanisms that can cause this, wikipedia has a summary.
In this case the ants have a "selfish gene" which greatly increases the probability of an egg being a queen, which makes it much harder for the colony to thrive.
As for the mixing of the species? You'd need a time travel machine to find out for sure, but the researchers noted that the species live in proximity and do mate together when in the same area. This would allow the queen to produce the needed workers. Evolution drove forward and somehow created a mechanism that allowed the ants to maintain the DNA required independent from the origin species. That's what the researchers are looking for now.
Wouldn't the first known animal to clone members of another species be humans?
In that case the article refers to the ant birthing members of another species, the word 'clone' is a bit weird here, but it is totally different from humands cloning cows, as the cloned cow is still birthed by a cow. The other species 'cloned' by the and is not a cloned individual, just another member of that species, but birthed by another, i suppose "researchers discover xenoparity in hairy ants" isn't very good science communication
I'd wager these ants have been doing it for longer than humans have, unless they somehow only started this in the 90s.
In most contexts humans are seprate from animals.