ants

How ants navigate homeward - forward, backward, or sideward

gregladen — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:00:41 +0000

How ants navigate homeward - forward, backward, or sideward

I've got this press release that will be of interest to many:

An international team including researchers at the university of Edinburgh and Antoine Wystrach of the Research Centre on Animal Cognition (CNRS/Université Toulouse III—Paul Sabatier) has shown that ants can get their bearings whatever the orientation of their body. Their brains may be smaller than the head of a pin, but ants are excellent navigators that use celestial and terrestrial cues to memorize their paths. To do so, they use several regions of the brain simultaneously, proving once again that the brain of insects is more complex than thought. The researchers' findings were published in Current Biology on January 19, 2017.

Until now, ethological research suggested that ants memorized the scenery perceived along their route as it is projected on their multifaceted retinas—thus using a body-centered, or egocentric, frame of reference. By this hypothesis, to recognize memorized surroundings and follow a path formerly traveled, ants would need to orient their bodies in the same way each time. But they sometimes need to walk backwards as well, and this doesn't prevent them from finding their way back to their nest. Could it be that ants can recognize a route when facing the opposite direction? Are they able to create a visual model of their environment that is independent of their body orientation?

To answer these questions, the researchers studied Cataglyphis velox, an Andalusian desert ant known for its solo navigation ability. First they let the insects familiarize themselves with a route that included a 90° turn. After a day of training, ants that received a cookie crumb light enough to carry while walking forward handled the turn without the slightest difficulty. However, those given large cookie crumbs had to move backward, and unlike the others, they maintained their bearing instead of turning.

They also exhibited unexpected behavior: After walking backward a bit, they would occasionally drop their crumb, turn around, observe the scenery while pointing their bodies in the right direction, return to the crumb, and resume towing it backward - but this time in the correct direction. For these ants, body alignment thus seems necessary for recognition of scenery perceived by their retinas, but they are then able to memorize the new bearing and follow it backward. This behavior also shows that they can recall the existence of the dropped cookie crumb, and its location, in order to return to it after updating their bearing. These observations imply that at least 3 kinds of memory are working in unison: the visual memory of the route, the memory of the new direction to follow, and the memory of the crumb to retrieve.

Through another experiment using a mirror to reflect the sun1, the team demonstrated that the ants used celestial cues to maintain their bearing while walking backwards. Furthermore, ants were able to move in straight paths, whether walking forward, backward, or sideways. Once a bearing is memorized, they stay on it no matter how their bodies are oriented. Together these observations suggest that ants register direction using an external - or allocentric - frame of reference.

These new findings show that the ants' spatial orientation relies on multiple mental representations and memories woven together through a flow of information between several areas of their brain. This offers a whole new perspective on the world of insects, which is much more complex than previously believed.

gregladen Thu, 01/19/2017 - 08:00

Tags

insects

Neurobiology

ants

Brains

navigation

insects

Weekend Diversion: Down the Ant Hole

esiegel — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:42:36 +0000

Weekend Diversion: Down the Ant Hole

"When you have seen one ant, one bird, one tree, you have not seen them all." -E.O. Wilson

Sure, there are entire worlds within our world that we never even give a second thought to. There's an entire subterranean Universe to explore, and you might get the feeling to do it if you listen to Mecca Bodega's rumbling sound, in

Underground.

But as soon as those tiny critters begin invading your house, the wonder goes right out the window. In fact, you probably haven't thought much about them in terms other than how-to-poison-them in a long time.

But as a kid, I was often fascinated with the world of the tiny, insignificant ant. Scientifically, of course, there's the entire field of myrmecology, or the study of ants. But what you may not know is that the ant-hole goes far deeper than you may have realized. Thanks to one researcher, you're about to see exactly how.

Image credit: via Tschinkel WR. 2004. http://www.insectscience.org/4.21/

Florida State professor Walter Tschinkel has been studying the structure of ant colonies for a long time, and has taken castings of the entire underground structures of them! While I'd always thought that colonies had multiple, interconnected pathways, I never knew how varied and deep some of them went.

Image credit: Tschinkel, WR, via the Journal of Insect Science.

As you might expect, similar species build similar-structured colonies, while varieties exist between species as far as the number of deep crevasses and spacing between the large areas.

Image credit: W.R. Tschinkel, 2002, http://bio.fsu.edu/~tschink/publications/2003-3.pdf

These colonies can achieve depths of more than 12 feet, can house anywhere from hundreds to more than 10,000 ants, and usually have the youngest ants in the lowest levels; the ones that live closest to the surface are full-grown adult ants, already towards the end of their life cycles.

Image credit: Janet Chao of http://illustrationrevealed.wordpress.com/.

But what makes this most spectacular, to me, is that instead of using plaster casts, which broke apart easily and allowed one to count the ants inside, Walter Tschinkel now uses molten metals -- either zinc or aluminum -- to cast the entire colony at once, incinerating the ants and creating one, single metal structure that can be dug up completely intact!

Image credit: Mark Wallheiser.

And the structures that come out are simply amazing, as you can see for yourself in a number of publications.

Image credit: via Tschinkel, WR. 2004. http://www.insectscience.org/4.21/

Image credit: via Tschinkel WR. 2004. http://www.insectscience.org/4.21/

Image credit: via Tschinkel WR. 2004. http://www.insectscience.org/5.9/

There are more pictures available here, and a great interview with Tschinkel here, from which I learned how you can tell how old an ant is:

We do so by tracing the pigmentation of the ants—the ants are pale when first becoming the adult, so we can look at color of ants throughout different parts of the nest and find that there are more pale ants near the bottom. Or we look at mandible wear—the older the ant, the more wear there is on their mandible. With this method we judge their relative age based on relative wear.

And that's how you learn that the youngest ants are in the bottom chambers, and that the oldest ones are out foraging for food! For those of you who'd like to see a video of how this works, here's a short news segment on Dr. Tschinkel taking these amazing casts!

Boy, do I ever feel like a fool for making that sugar/borax/water solution; from now on, it's molten metal all the way! Hope you enjoyed a foray into this subterranean Universe, and I'll see you back here during the week for a look up and into the stars!

esiegel Sun, 02/24/2013 - 09:42

Tags

How do we wish to learn the structure of an ant colony?
- by killing 10,000,000 or more ants with molten metal
- OR by using GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) http://www.groundpenetratingradararizonagpr.com/concrete_scanning.html
-OR maybe some kind of sonar (in between medical and the oil exploration sonar)

The GPR or Sonar have the benefit of getting a digital 3D image; whereas the molten metal cast requires another step to get 3-D digital data.

Of course GPR or Sonar also leave the insect colony alive.
Well if you were going to kill the colony of ants anyway by putting up a parking lot; then what's the difference asphalt or molten metal.

But in the middle of a forest or natural area as the above photographs indicate. Well why not just begin gratuitously destroying the planet earth, 1 ant mound at a time; without regard to either the environment or the pain of the animal species.

I mean one ant colony here, another assault on planet earth there. Human damage to planet earth will never amount to much. Just ask the anti-global warming crowd.

As they say, "young children, who pull the wings off of bees or burn ants with a magnifying glass, grow up to be biologists or psychopaths."

"from now on, it’s molten metal all the way!"

OkThen.

I guess you need to start a SAVE THE ANTS movement. I just hope you won't be chaining yourself to any anthills.

For just $200 a day you could sponsor an ant hill. Just send payment to my house and I'll take care of the rest. Think of all the ants that need your help. Donate today.

If you're feeling depressed, OKThen, get ready to feel worse:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/25/litter-deepsea-survey…

I have to agree with OKThen. Burning down an entire ant colony just so you can study them is totally wrong in my book.

Yes, there are billions of them.. but still. It's just wrong.

Well, you can see *some* use in early work.

The first forays into medical science were gravediggers looking for dead and not decaying bodies, taking them apart and then needing a lot more dead bodies in case the reason why the person is dead is because that bit you're looking at is done wrong.

Passionate insect observers like J. Henri Fabre, O. W. Osborne just don't get it.

I mean pouring 10 tons of cement down a super ant colony is really BIG science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhvoMFn34 skip to the end to see a giant former ant colony being dug up. And these scientist now know that their dead THING is definitely the BIGGEST.

"But what makes this most spectacular, to me, is that... Walter Tschinkel now uses molten metals — either zinc or aluminum — to cast the entire colony at once, incinerating the ants and creating one, single metal structure that can be dug up completely intact!"

J. Henri Fabre's 1914 book Social Life in the Insect World can be read here
http://books.google.com/books?id=XdA-AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=j…

The NOVA program Lord of the Ants about E. O. Wilson http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/lord-ants.html

But read Fabre and Wilson only if you want to learn about insects.

Trophy hunters stick with metal, i.e. molten metal here, 100 rounds of bullets there, improvised explosive devices (with armor penetrating molten metal) elsewhere. Metal is the future of biology.

Trophy hunting, whether for ant colony structures or rhinocerous heads or an insane moment of fame, is just part of the inescapable logic of our culture of sex and violence.

As Mae West said, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

I mean we can't go through life without killing other life, e.g. especially ants and people.

Respect for life is just an excellent political slogan. I mean who really cares about ants? Or even science?

"Cosmologist Brian Swimme concludes in a 1997 interview:"I think that what E. O. Wilson is trying to suggest is that to be fully human, a person has to see that life has a heroic dimension... I think for the scientist, and for other people, it's a question of, "Is the universe valuable? Is it sacred? Is it holy? Or is the human agenda all that matters?" I just don't think we're that stupid to continue in a way that continues to destroy."" wikipedia

Scientists like O. W. Wilson and Brian Swimme just don't get it. We are just stupid enough to continue to destroy; because it is Necessary Violence; which is really quite different than Unnecessary Violence.

I mean once you get the hang of this logic; you can do anything.

"In fact, you probably haven’t thought much about [ants] in terms other than how-to-poison-them in a long time."

I don't really enjoy when articles talk down to their audience like this. I think about things like this often, as do many of my friends. Not because we are scientists, either. Just curious people. There are a lot of curious people.

John James Audubon, the famous naturalist and painter of birds, namesake of the Audubon Society which works to preserve bird habitats and spread awareness, did his ornithology the old fashioned way: with a shotgun.

Which, as a random fact of no consequence to non-birders, is why so many birds are named after features that are useless as field markings because they're only readily apparent if you're holding one in your hand.

As a fact of consequence -- ornithologists were not responsible for diminishing the populations of birds. It was later, when commercial hunting began, that birds were hunted to extinction (which is only a subset of extinctions; most were due to habitat destruction, with invasive species playing a secondary role). Also orthithologists did not shoot birds "gratuitously". They did it because it was the only way to study the birds in enough detail to understand their structure.

Now of course high-quality optics have made it so that we don't need to shoot birds to study their physical features (and obviously it's vastly superior for studying behavior to have a live bird).

When Ground Penetrating Radar is precise enough and cheap enough for entomologists to study ant colonies in-tact with them, then they will use them. Meanwhile, creating a colony cast here and there is not an "assault on the earth". It's studying the earth. If and when the commercial market for metal ant colony casts kicks in and you have thousands of people making them full-time, that's when you should worry.

In the meantime, cut the hysterics, or cut off your internet, phone, sewer, water, gas, and every other utility which killed far more fauna than these folks ever did.

"But read Fabre and Wilson only if you want to learn about insects. "

If I do read it, will I learn than Fabre and Wilson never took insects?

And will I also learn how they re-created all the learning that other entomologists have done by examining dead insects under microscopes, and carefully comparing them to other species? Or rather, based on the implication that anything "learned" as a result of killing insects isn't learning, did they find a way to take that not-learning and turn it into learning?

"I don’t really enjoy when articles talk down to their audience like this."

Though you realise this is talking down to the blog writer and his audience, right?

CB, you are right, and the impact on biosphere is negligible. However it's still not right, and if we want to really preserve the planet, then mental awareness should follow.

There is no arguing that there are necessary evils for greater good... if we can phrase it like that. But let's not get excited and say how cool this is... if we know that the entire colony was basically armagedoned.

Could it be that they can't find an abandoned tunnel system? Or simulate it in the lab between the sheets of plexiglass?

It's not that I'm crying over ants. If you need to eradicate them cause they are eating your garden, or your home.. that's fine. I just think in principal it's very uncool to go into the wilderness and burn them down with molten metal, because I'm an an entomologist and I study their homes... ffs.

No hysterics, nor depression,nor even denial here.

The economy is tough, people are out of work, ants are everywhere and they are nutritious.

Kick start the global economy by going into the ant business:
1) a 1 lb box chocolate covered ants sells for $50.
2) a 10 lb metal ant colony sculpture (extermination of ant colony a fringe benefit) $600 (on sale now regularly $1200)
3) a 1lb bag of freeze dried insects ("5 popular edible bugs including bamboo worms, silk worms, big crickets, mole crickets and buffalo dung beetles. The insects are collected fresh and then quick frozen, cleaned, dehydrated, seasoned and then packed in a special vacuum pouch with an oxygen and moisture absorber. These insects can be eaten straight from the bag.)" only $5 plus $15 shipping to US.

But before making your businessness decision to jump start your personal economic situation (if not the global economy) please note: "Military survival manuals clearly state that insects should be eaten as a PERFECT alternative when other food sources are not available. The success of this suggestion was widely publicized in 1996, when Lieutenant Scott O'Grady lost his plane to enemy forces in Bosnia, then survived in the forests by eating ants."

If you don't think ANTS are the future; just ask Air fForce Pilot Lieutenant Scott O'Grady about the future of the ant snack food business. "And for those of you who don't eat ants, they're crunchy, and they're sour."

So don't take my word, the US military or a decorated war hero. Ants are the PERFECT snack food business; "they're crunchy, and they're sour."

"Has he ever killed anybody? "Nope," Lieutenant O'Grady said firmly. "You know, violence is never the answer to any problem." While American kids enjoy freedom, children in some countries do not, and the U.S. military sometimes has to step in to protect their freedom, he said, explaining, "We were there to stop people from killing people."" LATimes

"If you need to eradicate them cause they are eating your garden, or your home.. that’s fine."

if you live in a nation with grocery stores, why is it okay to eradicate ants simply because you enjoy gardening, or enjoy the taste of fresh tomatoes? That seems ridiculously less justifiable from an ethical standpoint than killing ants because you want to better understand them. Sure it's "ironic", but not really. At least in this case they're dying for a specific scientific purpose. And yes, learning and killing sometimes go hand in hand.

If we can't call learning about the structure of ant's homes built in natural habitats "cool", then you can't call gardening cool. You can't call a person's house, or any work of architecture, cool. You can't call the Large Hadron Colider cool. You can't call the Space Shuttle cool. You can't call Mars Science Laboratory cool. And you sure as effin' heck can't ever call the Internet cool. Sooo many ant colonies (and other fauna, oh and let's not forget flora) destroyed to lay cable just so you can read about this particular un-coolness in between cat videos. Those sure justify the death of trillions of ants!

Oh wait, in those cases ant-murder was tangential. They were likely not even noticed and certainly not thought about. Therefore that's okay? What?

I've eaten ants (specifically the big black carpenter ants), and can concur with Lt. O'Grady's assessment of their flavor. I can also say fairly convincingly that ants are only going to be the future of snack food for stranded pilots and back-woods hikers short on food (who are also teenagers willing to eat anything).

Instead of spinning a "modest proposal" that apparently has some non-hysterical point that eludes me, why not consider my question:

Did Fabre and Wilson ever take (as in kill) insects so as to learn more about them?

If you choose to investigate this question, and when you inevitably find out the answer is "yes, of course they did, all entomologists do", maybe you can consider the difference between killing a few colonies to better understand colonies, and the MANY colonies YOU have killed simply to support your unnecessary creature comforts. Maybe you'll see how this isn't such a big deal. Or at least put it in perspective and stop being such a hysterical hypocrite.

This is a very cool article.

I don't read scienceblogs.com very offten, but I agree with the comment that the blog writer didn't really know his audience. Assuming people reading scienceblogs.com aren't thinking about ants is kind of a ridiculous assumption.

To #11: He wasn't talking down at all. You seem to have a dim understanding of what "talking down" is. (Spoiler alert: I'm doing it right now.)

"Assuming people reading scienceblogs.com aren’t thinking about ants is kind of a ridiculous assumption."

Can you answer me this: were you thinking of ants before you read this thread title?

No?

Then you weren't thinking of them, were you.

To #16, yes he was.

CB
Yes, John James Audubon should be the patron scientist of the NRA.
10 of his Birds of America are extinct or on the endangered species list.
Very prophetic.

John James Audubon was a hunter-naturalist. A scientist with a gun; who was unafraid to kill even the symbol of America, the bald eagle.

"The true story, however, is that Audubon didn't capture the eagle in the wild, didn't crawl over the precipice with his specimen. He bought it from a friend in Boston, a bird in a cage that cost fourteen dollars. Then he took it back to his hotel room, kept it in the cage for three days, and tried to kill it by covering the cage closely with a blanket, putting a pan of burning charcoal in the room, closing the door and windows tightly, and waiting for the eagle to die. It didn't work. After a few hours, Audubon writes, he "opened the door, raised the blankets, and peeped under them amidst a mass of suffocating fumes." There the eagle still stood, Audubon continues, "with his bright unflinching eye turned towards me, and as lively and vigorous as ever!" The next morning, to make the fumes even more toxic, Audubon added some sulfur to the smoldering charcoal, making the indoor environment a small-scale version of Hell itself, but again "the noble bird continued to stand erect, and to look defiance at us whenever we approached his post of martyrdom." Finally, to finish off the defiant bird and to make the martyrdom complete, Audubon "thrust a long pointed piece of steel through his heart, when my proud prisoner instantly fell dead, without even ruffling a feather.""

It takes a lot of courage to be a hunter-naturalist. Let's just call it the tough love of a naturalist-born-killer.

Of course, John James Audubon could have painted the bald eagle up close right there in his hotel room; and then released the bald eagle to the wild.

But Audubon more than an artist and naturalist; John James Audubon was a hunter for trophies.

"Once you get the hang of this logic; you can kill anything."

Bravado science!!

"Assuming people reading scienceblogs.com aren’t thinking about ants is kind of a ridiculous assumption."

I'm pretty sure that Ethan doesn't understand at least some of the audience for his writings, and I'm more than happy to join him in that confusion. We often get one really dumb line of argument in the comments to a given post, but this is a two-fer to remember.

Like I said, basically all ornithology in his day was done with a shotgun. And hunter-nationalists were very common then. Teddy Roosevelt being the most famous example of such a person. No one man has done more for preserving natural habitats than he did.

Even today hunters and environmentalists have similar priorities. The reason being that recreational hunters understand the importance of a thriving ecosystem to ensure the continuance of their sport.

It is first and foremost habitat destruction, then environmental damage, invasive species, and large-scale commercial poaching, that result in birds becoming endangered or extinct. Gun-totin' ornithologists from the turn of last century don't even make a blip on the radar.

So in light of that, what exactly do you think is "prophetic" about his birds being endangered or extinct? Do you think it was ornithologists, or habitat destruction, that caused the Ivory Billed Woodpecker to go extinct? Hint: It was the latter.

Here's what's "prophetic": That his work would be ignored by the general populace, who would go on destroying natural habitats willy-nilly, cutting down old-growth forest to make nice furniture from. Dumping the waste from the furniture factory into the water. Letting cats run free. And so on. Causing untold death and destruction, killing millions and millions of animals without even being aware, or giving a damn.

You aren't thinking about the plight of these birds, just like you give no thought to the countless ant colonies that were killed for no reason but so you could have a nice lawn and cute cat videos on the Internet. Oh, but then a scientists wants to actually learn something from the death of one, THEN you suddenly notice and get offended.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind -- you aren't a hypocrite if you just don't think about it so whatever you do don't think about it! That's the only "logic" in your posts.

Audobon's methods would not be accepted today, but he still did a great deal for nature by increasing understanding. Teddy Roosevelt did, too. Unfortunately, shallow viewpoints like yours that are founded in an emotional distaste of things that are done to gain knowledge and a hypocritical blindness to the big picture and your role in it is all too accepted.

CB
What science have we learned from the molten metal ant colonies?(i.e. that we didn't know before)? This is not a rhetorical question; please explain.

Ethan explanation, "I never knew how varied and deep some of them went... the structures that come out are simply amazing... These colonies can achieve depths of more than 12 feet." isn't very deep scientifically speaking.

If we are going to destroy an ant colony, a bald eagle, or a rhinoceros; we ought to learn or fill our stomach or have a trophy. So what did we learn from the metal ant colony; please someone explain why this isn't just trophy science.

Well Teddy Roosevelt is certainly the patron saint of the National Rifle Association. http://www.frfrogspad.com/trnra.htm

"The wind blew from him to us, and a rhino's eyesight is dull. Thirty yards from where he stood was a bush four or five feet high, and through the leaves, it shielded us from the vision of his small, piglike eyes as we advanced toward it, stooping and in single file, I leading. The big beast stood like an uncouth statue, his hide black in the sunlight; he seemed what he was, a monster surviving over from the world's past, from the days when the beasts of the prime ran riot in their strength, before man grew so cunning of brain and hand as to master them. So little did he dream of our presence that when we were a hundred yards off he actually lay down. Walking lightly, and with every sense keyed up, we at last reached the bush, and I pushed forward the safety of the double-barreled Holland rifle which I was now to use for the first time on big game. As I stepped to one side of the bush so as to get a clear aim, with Slatter following, the rhino saw me and jumped to his feet with the agility of a polo pony. As he rose I put in the right barrel, the bullet going through both lungs. At the same moment he wheeled, the blood spouting from his nostrils, and galloped full on. Before he could get quite all the way round in his headlong rush to reach us, I struck him with my left-hand barrel, the bullet entering between the neck and shoulder and piercing his heart. At the same instant Captain Slatter fired, his bullet entering the neck vertebrae. Ploughing up the ground with horn and feet, the great bull rhino, still head toward us, dropped just thirteen paces from where we stood. This was a wicked charge, for the rhino meant mischief and came on with the utmost determination." Teddy Roosevelt, Trophy Naturalist

So CB what have we learned about nature from
- Teddy Roosevelt, patron saint of the NRA
- John James Audubon, should be patron scientist of the NRA

Conclusion/discussion: Molten metal kills ant colonies, a long pointed piece of steel through his heart kills bald eagles and a doubled barrel rhino gun kills a charging rhinos.
Now that's THE WORST KIND OF SCIENCE HYPE.

Thank you Ethan, I enjoyed the post. The only good ant is a dead ant. Stop crying and admit you squash them when they are in your yard or house.

OKThen, what science have we learnt when we discover that the hippocampus has something to do with navigation?

And has the fact that the knowledge of that came from damaging living brains meant that the science is null and void?

Having other methods now (NMRI) does that mean we

a) should have waited
b) should continue with damaging brains

“Cosmologist Brian Swimme concludes in a 1997 interview:”I think that what E. O. Wilson is trying to suggest is that to be fully human, a person has to see that life has a heroic dimension… I think for the scientist, and for other people, it’s a question of, “Is the universe valuable? Is it sacred? Is it holy? Or is the human agenda all that matters?” I just don’t think we’re that stupid to continue in a way that continues to destroy.”" wikipedia

But does the human agenda not matter in the slightest?

@ CB
"That seems ridiculously less justifiable from an ethical standpoint than killing ants because you want to better understand them."

Because it's ok to beat someone up or kill(in extreme cases) in self defense or if your home or well being is threatened. But it's not ok to go pick a random person on a street and do the same.

Why is it less justifiable. First is survival of the fittest, the second is sick in my book. And ornitologists shooting birds is no less wrong in my book too. So I guess it's a matter of view. I also am no huge fan of feeding sharks from steel cages and poking them with radio locators, or any evasive study of nature. We have done that for 400 years cca. Think we can do better with what technology we already have.

I guess that my standpoint is that IF we want the nature to remain as it is now or improve, we should just leave it alone. Or try to make as little footprint as possible. And IMO biologists should be the first to set an example, not the last. If a biologist is allowed to pour molten metal into a species habitat and thus kill several hundreds of thousands of them... and do that repeatedly over years ( how many casts do you need... seriously?), then what is an "average" Joe allowed to do?

"But it’s not ok to go pick a random person on a street and do the same.

Why is it less justifiable."

So there may be some justification.

"Or try to make as little footprint as possible"

I can agree.

However, there seems to be disagreement about what "little footprint" means.

Large Blue butterfly flutters back from extinction, thanks to a tiny ant http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5542084/Large-Blue-butterfly-…

we are as gods
upon planet earth
the human agenda
must explicitly include
the implicit agenda
of other living creatures
the implicit value of
one organism to another

explicit human value
(if it is not trivial)
must include the
implicit value of the
web of life and death
on planet earth
are we worthy
caretakers yet

Tschinkle next to his incinerated ant colony, Audubon next to his dead defiant eagle, and Teddy Roosevelt next to his dead monster rhino are about human ego, the hunter's trophy, and "tabloid science".

OK, so how do you figure there's "Ego" at play over your "kill" of an Ant?

@OKThen
"What science have we learned from the molten metal ant colonies?"

Details of the full 3-D structure of ant colonies. By comparing them between species, we learn about how various branches of the ant family construct nests which gives us further hints about their organization, and even cognition, plus the evolutionary relationship between species.

"- Teddy Roosevelt, patron saint of the NRA"

Every scientific study conducted within the confines of a National Park, which preserve habitats which would otherwise be gone in some cases entirely, can be attributed to his actions. Many species protection and re-introduction projects would be impossible without these protected lands.

"- John James Audubon, should be patron scientist of the NRA"

Physical structure, patterning, and behavior of many species of North American birds, including 25 new species. Yes, behavior. "Derp, how do you get behavior from a dead bird?" I hear you unthinkingly ask. He did a huge amount of field work and observation of live birds. His contribution to ornithology cannot be understated.

It can, of course, be completely ignored by some dunce asking rhetorically "Derp, what did we learn about nature from John James Audobon?" and myopically assuming the answer is "nothing".

Meanwhile, still not a single thought for all the ant colonies destroyed by your life and what you gained from them. Ignorant hypocrite.

@ Sinisa
"Why is it less justifiable. First is survival of the fittest, the second is sick in my book."

How is your backyard vegetable or flower garden a matter of "survival of the fittest"? Unless you're a professional or subsistence farmer, then it isn't. It's just a thing you like to do because you enjoy the gardening, or the flowers, or supplementing your already sufficient food stores with fresh vegetables.

So if an ant colony gets in the way of one of your goals, no matter how trivial, that's justifiable as a form of "survival of the fittest".

Fine. The ants in the ant colony the cast was made of were in the way of the goal of understanding ant colony structure.

Sounds like a much better justification to me than "I like begonias" or "grocery store tomatoes are sooo flavorless".

OKThen,

I see what you're trying to say (I think) about the ant killing is "much ado about nothing" (not really tho-- structures in the universe are trending to be similar (fluid dynamics, gravity etc) and any more evidence of structure in what seems like a random point in space is a real & relevant discovery), but I do not have a single clue to what is your point? This is a science forum where Eathan explains the scientific method and theory and applies it to his own studies of astronomy, physics & the universe In general... Like I said structure in theoretical physics is a very hot topic... Whether its a galaxy, a hurricane or a sea shell.... What's your beef?

You should go to animal activists sites and post this article there... Then you can find more like you and more people will understand your point (whatever it is-- is it that we can't do anything that harms anything, anytime? Anywhere? What happens when you squish a bug driving w your car?!! Do you like, pray or make up your murderous killing to somehow? What if you were rushing a family member to the hospital and then you squashed the bug? What if, in developing a super device that saves bugs from windshield deaths, your device had a defect and "squish"....)

Idk ... In your world I think we'd all starve and nature would have no problem (ants included) eating you, your home and everything else IMHO... I'm embarassed about your rant

Beyond the hype, the National Parks web site has a 65 page book that covers 1870 to 1940 titled:
A Brief History of the National Park Service http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/kieley/index.htm
Teddy Roosevelt is mentioned twice in passing, pg 6 & pg 13.

"In 1902, Iowa Congressman John F. Lacey, who chaired the House Committee on the Public Lands, traveled to the Southwest with the rising anthropologist Edgar Lee Hewett, to see for himself the extent of the pot hunters' impact. His findings, supported by an exhaustive report by Hewett to Congress detailing the archaeological resources of the region, provided the necessary impetus for the passage of the legislation." wikipedia

Regarding the science learned or hoped to be learned from entombing entire ant colonies, I find no papers. Please provide a link.

I find only research papers discussing the techniques of entombing a colony of ants.

I'm sure Tschinkel's freakin private residence can make for some amazing molten metal structures as well...

So could yours, Aen.

Basements are an unusual structure. :P

Like it or not, I'll side with OKThen and the ants. I can't appreciate killing so many living organisms for - what, actually?
I love you blog, Ethan, but I also find it very sad that National Geographic, a magazine supposed to support the conservation of nature would endorse an article (even if it's from you) about ant incineration. National can better: in August 2007, they said this about ants: "They groom each other. They use tools. And they love hang gliding". In May and July of 2007, more articles on ants were published. Read them, and you'll never praise ant incineration again.

It is much easier to pour aluminum down an ant hole when you realize that if you do, you really don't have to justify it. Let others like those in this thread who take sides enjoy their discord. It is what they want, what they live for.

I eat chicken at Wendy's with nary a thought about the life lost to help me live, except that I'm grateful for it. Those who complain about loss of any life might be more believable if they protested the pest extermination industry which kills arthropods of all stripes for no more reason than someone paid them to without furthering any knowledge whatsoever.

Have any of you who pretend to side with the ants realize how nasty poisoning is in terms of how long it takes a bug to die? Or the pain it suffers? Molten aluminum and zinc are instantaneous.

Any benefit we gain from ant castings has more value than nature gives for the billions of lives lost each day predators survive to eat more. Nature gets no value because "nature" isn't a sentient being. If you believe it is, then you've just brought religion into the mix.

I've seen these videos of making casts of ant holes both large and small and I'd love to have one. There are already someones out there making them for people so that the someones can survive. The coolness of these casts may inspire someone to study ants more. There are many kinds of value out there, and some of them conflict.

What I've noticed about natural things living or inanimate is that the only reason we protect areas of natural beauty is because we like areas like that. Simply just because. Nature doesn't care. Nature, as it were, will let life develop for millions of years, then toast it with a supernova for no reason at all. The only value there is, is that which WE place on things, and all the trade offs that flow from that. I value the aluminum sculpture more than the ant colony that died to make it possible. If you believe this to be unethical, you must be able to see the humor in arguing here, then going out and participating in civilization without any thought for all the consequences that follow from it.

The real war being fought in this thread is not whether or not ants have a right to exist, but rather who loathes humanity and what it does to "nature" to the point of expressing that the world would be better without us here. The other side immediately capitulates by having to justify why they do anything that they simply want to do. They needn't do so. They should be proud that they are sentient and have power to organize the world the way they want. I am. :)

For all of you people who argue that life is important, you really don't believe what you say. Proof is simple. We go to your place of abode, or your workplace, and I'd be willing to bet that you don't have ants and roaches and bedbugs or mice and rats in those places. At least if you have anything to do about it. You are happy to not have those living things around and are willing to kill them to ensure it stays that way. I laugh inside, as I am easily amused as I watch all the contortions to argue that life, even the bugs have intrinsic value worth making an ethics code to protect, when the real value is that which gets chosen because you like one value more than another.

All this makes a great introduction to this piece by the Arrogant Worms: "Carrot Juice is Murder." Life is too much fun to take such a stifled view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

One last point about "nature": 99.9999999999 (to 30 digits to the right of the decimal) is empty space. And that is pretending that matter is solid the way we see it. Of the infinitesimal amount left, a very large amount of it, exceeding 99% is inhospitable to life because it is too hot, too cold, wrong mix of elements etc. By that standard, nature hates life. Which means that our earth is a wicked, unruly project that should be made to conform with the rest of the universe. Just because. :)

And Man said, "Let us cast out the ants!" And it was so.

Gliding ants swoop back to their nest

sciencepunk — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:12:37 +0000

Gliding ants swoop back to their nest

The Smithsonian has a cool post on wingless ants that have learned how to glide through the forest canopy using their outstretched legs. If knocked from their treetop nest, Cephalotes atratus avoid falling to the ground by steering themselves, tail first, back toward the tree. Yes, not only can these ants glide, they do it backwards.

Full details over at the Smithsonian Science blog.

sciencepunk Wed, 06/15/2011 - 11:12

Tags

"â¢ Ants with hind legs, mid legs and gaster removed are unable to steer or glide effectively."

er, I guess not. They probably can't walk, defend against predators, attack prey, forage or eat terribly effectively, either. In fact they're probably too busy screaming, "AAARGHH, SOME UNETHICAL RESEARCHER HAS JUST CHOPPED OFF MY HIND LEGS, MID LEGS, AND GASTER, aaaraggghhh.."

"Some species are capable of righting themselves as they fall and rotating so their heads point toward the trunk of the tree from which they fell, but are not capable of horizontal movement. This suggests a transitional period in which these ants are evolving a gliding behavior."

yeah, because those successful ants are going to pass their genes on to their many offspring....

Vince -- while it's true these specific ants will not pass on their genes, their colony will. Evolution doesn't just work at an individual level; if that were true, hive species couldn't exist. Bees would never evolve, because a fitter worker bee doesn't reproduce and pass on those fitter genes.

Thing is, a *queen* whose offspring can glide will have more success than a queen whose offspring does not, because her colony will be more successful. Don't think of worker and soldier ants as individuals; think of them as the hands and feet and eyes and ears of the colony, while the queen is the colony's reproductive tract. It's not about the workers' survival. It's about the colony's survival.

"probably too busy screaming, "AAARGHH, SOME UNETHICAL RESEARCHER HAS JUST CHOPPED OFF MY HIND LEGS, MID LEGS, AND GASTER, aaaraggghhh..""

Probably not. They may not feel much pain, if any. I've read that if you bend a dragonfly so its tail end gets in reach of its mandibles, it'll start devouring itself. If it had much sensitivity to pain, I'd think it would stop pretty quickly. Or at least take evasive action to escape the 'predator', and in the process distract itself from eating itself.

arsa Onlar Ã§ok aÄrÄ± hissediyorum olmayabilir.Ben onun kuyruk sonu kendi altÃ§eneleri ulaÅamayacaÄÄ± da alÄ±r bÃ¶ylece bir yusufÃ§uk viraj, kendisini yiyor baÅlayacaÄÄ±z olduÄunu okudum.Bu aÄrÄ± Ã§ok duyarlÄ±lÄ±k olsaydÄ±, bunu Ã§ok hÄ±zlÄ± bir Åekilde durdurmak dÃ¼ÅÃ¼nÃ¼yorum ediyorum.

Return of the brain-controlling zombie-ant parasitic fungi

neurophilosophy — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:25:37 +0000

Return of the brain-controlling zombie-ant parasitic fungi

A dead ant infected with a parasitic Cordyceps fungus (David P. Hughes).

A team of entomologists working in the Brazilian rain forest has discovered four new species of parasitic Cordyceps fungi, which infect insects and manipulate the behaviour of their hosts in order to disperse their spores as widely as possible.

The modus operandi of Cordyceps is reminiscent of the famous chest-bursting scene in the movie Alien. Microscopic spores infiltrate the host via the spiracles - the holes in the exoskeleton through which insects breathe - and the fungus begins feeding on its non-vital organs.

When it is ready to release its spores, Cordyceps brainwashes its host: its filaments grow into the insect's brain, and release chemicals that cause it to climb a nearby plant and attach itself near the top by biting onto a leaf or stem. The host is then killed, and a mushroom containing spores sprouts from the top of its head.

Cordyceps fungi were first described in the nineteenth century by Louis RenÃ© Tulasne in the book Selecta Fungorum Carpologia, first published in 1865. This monumental three-volume work was filled with beautiful plates produced by his brother Charles, who came to be known as 'The Audubon of mycology' due to the outstanding quality of his work. The detail below shows an infected carpenter ant, which Tulasne mistakenly identified as a leaf-cutter, with the fruiting body of the mushroom which has sprouted from its head.

Since then, thousands of Cordyceps species have been identified, each specific to one, or sometimes two, host species. The four new species were discovered by David Hughes of Pennsylvania State University and his colleagues, in samples collected at two different sites in the State of Minas Gerais in south-eastern Brazil.

Each one infects a different species of carpenter ant, and they can be distinguished from one another by the size and shape of the spores they produce. All four produce mushrooms that sprout from the host's head, but two also produce smaller stalks that emerge from the feet and joints in the lower leg.

The researchers note that the sites at which the specimens were collected have become markedly drier and hotter in recent years, and attribute the climatic changes to global warming. Although ants can easily adapt to these changing conditions, Cordyceps cannot, and Hughes fears that one of the newly-discovered species may soon become extinct.

Related:

Brainwashed by a parasite

Evans, H., et al. (2011). Hidden Diversity Behind the Zombie-Ant Fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis: Four New Species Described from Carpenter Ants in Minas Gerais, Brazil. PLoS ONE 6 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017024.

neurophilosophy Thu, 03/03/2011 - 03:25

Tags

"Exactly how the chemicals work is unknown; they may interfere with the host's geomagnetic sense."

Puh-leeeze.

First of all, ants are not known to have any "geomagnetic sense". And if they did, it would just be called "magnetic".

Secondly, there's scarcely any vertical component to the earth's magnetic field in the Amazon rain forest. It points North and South. Not up, nor down. So it would not be useful at all in guiding an ant to climb upward. That would be GRAVITY.

Jeez, what is it with biologists making flaky speculations about magnetism lately? Didn't you pay any attention in Physics class?

Just horrible but its nature's play!

"Brazilian rainforest" gives the impression you are talking about the Amazon, but Minas Gerais has not one square meter of Amazon. So what forest was it exactly, Mata AtlÃ¢ntica? Or perhaps Cerrado?...

This is the first time I am hearing this. It's so weird. My only fear is when man begins to employ this to manipulate his fellow man.

http://www.mjt.org/exhibits/foundation_collections/stink_ant/stinkant.h…
i guess they were on to something.

Just horrible but its nature's play!

@Nicolau: According to the paper (which is open access): "We formally describe and name four new species belonging to the O. unilateralis species complex collected from remnant Atlantic rainforest in the south-eastern region (Zona da Mata) of the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil."

It may seem a bit disgusting, but how about this: Cordyceps is considered an 'herb' in Chinese traditional medicine and is a highly-sought after and expensive remedy. Yes, they eat it!

As official zombie brain expert, I approve of this research :) Great article, Mo!

*Ahem*.

It's Ophiocordyceps.

/pedANT

This is nothing new. There is a cordycep fungi for every species of insect. Even so, it's still creepy.

Request: the Dunn lab needs live ants

awild — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:31:15 +0000

Request: the Dunn lab needs live ants

Tapinoma sessile

Ant ecologist extraordinaire Rob Dunn sends along the following request:

We are looking for live colonies of

Aphaenogaster rudis

Temnothorax curvispinosus or T. longispinosus

Crematogaster lineolata

Tapinoma sessile

from anywhere within their ranges. If you are potentially willing to contribute colonies we would be very grateful. Please contact Sarah Diamond (sediamon@unity.ncsu.edu) regarding details. If you are interested in more extensive collection of colonies, we may be able to reimburse your collection time. These collections will be used to try to understand variation across the geographic ranges of these species in thermal tolerance and other life history traits. We are also interested in how the cryptic species of the A. rudis complex differ in their traits associated with thermal tolerance (and will be DNA barcoding specimens) and so if you aren't sure which of the A. rudis complex species you have, feel free to just send it along and we will sort it out.

Very Sincerely,

Rob Dunn and Sarah Diamond

The Dunn lab is at the cutting edge of macroecology and produces some absolutely world-class ant science. If you have access to any of these common North American species, I encourage you to contact Sarah for details about how to collect and send the colonies.

Temnothorax curvispinosus

awild Sat, 07/03/2010 - 05:31

Tags

ants

Science

Define colony.

And define "ship across state lines." I'm sure there is a legal explanation to shipping these ants about but it might be best to mention that here.

These are some amazing pictures. What resolution I wonder do you use on a camera to get such amazing details of such tiny incredible creatures?

And as well as than you have made these photos?

Then and now: I think I've improved

awild — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:50:04 +0000

Then and now: I think I've improved

Messor decipiens,
South Africa

Here's a photo I took last week. It shows a granivorous ant with an enormous head housing muscles for milling the harvest. I used Canon's MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens and a twin flash diffused through two sheets of mylar.

The last time I photographed this species was in the field in South Africa, using a little Nikon coolpix digicam. That was in 2003:

While it's true that the greater magnification and sensor quality of the newer and pricier Canon gear make an obvious difference, I'd argue the single biggest advance is in the lighting. The Canon allows my to plug in an off-camera flash. I gain control over the direction and intensity of the lighting, and once I add in fifteen cents' worth of tape, paper clips, and diffusing paper I can produce a lovely, softly-lit ant portrait.

After all, photography is about light. All the megapixels in the world won't matter if you cannot properly light the image.

awild Tue, 06/29/2010 - 04:50

Tags

ants

Photography

I'm still around where you were in the older pictures. Note to self: Next expenditure should be on lighting!

Just an idea but it would be interesting to see what happened if you didn't use diffuse white light. Perhaps bounced off a bit of blue paper. Perhaps contrasting colors from different directions to highlight surface textures of the insect.

Oh, wow. I'd agree.

And this is making me wish (yet again) that I had the money for an expensive flash unit just lying around. :)

word

Don't forget the 7 years of experience between the two images. I doubt most people would get similar results with the same equipment :-)

But what are you doing in South Africa? You're not just there to watch soccer, are you?!

Hey Alex... So I just stepped up from a Canon 100mm macro to a MP-E and MT-24EX. The MP-E is surprisingly easy to handhold if the twinflash is used. The main issue I have now is diffusing the thing. Is there any specific type of mylar that you use, and where do you get it? I've played with a few different diffusing materials, and I haven't found one I'm totally happy with.

Art: That's a great idea. I played around with some scarab beetles a couple years ago using different color reflectors, but I never quite got the hang of it to where the result didn't look... weird.

Nils: I wish I had gone to South Africa (especially now that Paraguay is rocking out the world cup!). But no. I just briefly intercepted some lab ants on their way to a genomics screening project.

Nick: The secret to the diffusing paper, in my experience, is keeping it close to the subject and far from the flash head. Try raising the MT-24's flash heads up an inch or two- it should make a world of difference.

Wow. I hope one day I can do a similar post, with equally astounding results. Beautiful portrait, indeed!

Thanks for sharing these photographs. It gives the rest of us hope :-)

Hi Alex,

the pictures from you are always awesome!
Are these all macro images?

Greetings

Oh my gosh!

The images are so incredibly beautyful.
I've searched after the price of the cam and the lens...
Near 1300 Euros for the cam and for the lens 1000 Euros again!!!
High prices...that's a pity

LG
Kimberly
Ant Planet

7d and a MPE-65 is great fun. You can sit anywhere in the world, and find something interesting to photograph. Course, then you spend endless time figuring out what things, plants, insects, etc are, and how to get that really good shot!
ANts are fun, hard to shot, and interesting. But try getting into the Bryophytes, ie moss. Amazing stuff and all around us.

If you are willing to buy real estate, you would have to receive the personal loans. Furthermore, my brother commonly utilizes a collateral loan, which is really firm.

Mark Moffett's "Adventures Among Ants"

awild — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:47:10 +0000

Mark Moffett's "Adventures Among Ants"

My review of Mark Moffett's new ant book appears this morning in Myrmecological News:

Let me start with the obvious: Adventures among ants is the most visually stunning ant book ever published.

The physical product, from glossy paper to the tasteful font, is an aesthetic tour de force. The photographs are ... well, this is a Mark Moffett book, and unless you've been hiding under a rock for the past two decades - a reasonable place for a myrmecologist, I suppose - you'll know that Moffett is the National Geographic photographer responsible for much of that magazine's insect imagery from the 1980s onwards. The photographs are spectacular. The retro cover suggests 1950's era pulp movies and would itself make a fine poster. You'll be glad you bought this book even if you never read a word of it.

But read it you will, because Moffett is also a born storyteller. Therein lies the book's greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

Read the full review.

awild Thu, 06/24/2010 - 03:47

Tags

ants

I am halfway through this wonderful new book by Moffett and enjoying every page and photo! He is the consummate storyteller alright and anyone who purchases this book will be agree I feel. I have know Mark for over 20 years and he never gets old!

Thanks for posting this. Great cover! I like how the ant's watching the ant movie. Your glowing review made me want to see the book, and I put the lame in layman! As for lacking experimental rigour, from what you've said, Moffett's a photographer. That's his game and he plays it well. He leaves the boring, variable-controlled experiments to others. The geologist Thomas Belt was another guy who, using only his insight, significantly advanced tropical biology. The Ed Wilson quote is, I realize, a necessary evil marketing tool. I'm not defending Moffett against some perceived slight; it's because your review is so complete and balanced that I'm even aware of the criticism. I just mention Belt in reply to silent nods from ivory towers. Great job by everyone involved!

Nice review! I foresee Mark Moffet contacting you....
Something about Dorymyrmex...?

you should write a goddamn photo book. I'll edit. while we're in tahiti next week. and measuring aphid exhaust.

I read the book about a month ago. Highly recommended!

An insider's view of an ant colony

awild — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:44:22 +0000

An insider's view of an ant colony

A worker cradles a freshly-laid egg in the brood nest of a laboratory colony of the Argentine Ant Linepithema humile.

photo details: Canon EOS 7D camera

Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens

ISO 100, f/13, 1/250sec

awild Thu, 06/24/2010 - 02:44

Tags

ants

Photography

Arr!

What a picture! Hope the ants doing well!

You can visit my antblog at My antblog

Soccer in Paraguay

awild — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:42:47 +0000

Soccer in Paraguay

Apropos of Paraguay's victory in this morning's world cup match against Slovakia, here's a photo I took almost 15 years ago:

This is a local match in the Paraguayan community where I lived as a Peace Corps volunteer. Our team, from Colonia 11 de Setiembre, beat Ype Jhu 2-1.

But that's not why I'm sharing the picture. Do you see all that dirt mounded up in the foreground? That's a mature nest of Atta sexdens, a leafcutter ant, right on the playing field.

I guess there are two points here. First, ants are an ubiquitous presence in Paraguay, getting into just about everything. It's a myrmecologist's paradise. Second, soccer is even more ubiquitous in Paraguay than ants- so that even a thriving city of 8 million ants in the middle of the field doesn't deter the Paraguayos from their Futbol.

That's why I love seeing little Paraguay- a forgotten landlocked country with a population only half the size of New York City- do so well on the world stage.

awild Sun, 06/20/2010 - 04:42

Tags

ants

Nature

world cup

Ummm there are at least 136 countries with populations less than half the size of NYC. Many of them are quite prominent on the world stage. It's a big place. Great post, just can't abide casual demography, even on a Sunday morning :-)

It's true... but can they actually beat New Zealand?

And now, some small carpenter ants...

awild — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:35:14 +0000

And now, some small carpenter ants...

I haven't posted any ants for awhile. So here is a pair of little carpenter ants from the back yard:

Camponotus nearcticus

Camponotus caryae

Most people in North America think of carpenter ants as the big hairy black things that damage houses by chewing through older and dry-rotted wood. That's certainly true of Camponotus pennsylvanicus, the eastern black carpenter ant.

But the genus contains many smaller and less conspicuous species that nest in pre-formed cavities and plant stems, foraging for scraps and honeydew and generally bothering no one. The two pictured here are both abundant in our garden.

Researchers have started paying more attention to Camponotus in recent years, for two reasons.

First, it turns out that these ants' bellies are full of a bacterium called Blochmannia. Blochmannia are basically little Jesus bugs, converting ~~water into wine~~ urea into essential amino acids and allowing their host ants to thrive on diets where other ants flounder. So there's great potential for turning this ant/bacteria tryst into a coevolutionary model system.

Second, Camponotus lacks a metapleural gland. Why does this matter? One of the incredible things about ants- and one reason to study them- is their antibiotic prowess. Ant colonies inhabit warm, damp, moldy crevices, places where pathogens should abound. Yet these social insects are quite good at keeping their pests under control thanks to a battery of glandular secretions and associations with friendly bacteria. The metapleural gland is one structure suggested to have an antibiotic function, and how Camponotus survives without one will be an important consideration in studies of ant social immunity.

awild Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:35

Tags

ants

Nature

I did not know that the sight of 'carpenter ants' does not automatically mean that the beams in one's house are being chewed into insect condominiums. So I guess I can hope that the ants hanging around my kitchen are harmless. I'm going to be at the mercy of the exterminator, however. If he claims that I've got destructive carpenter ants, I, not being an entomologist (let alone a myrmecologist), won't know any different.

The important thing to know about carpenter ants is they can't do much with good wood. They're not like termites. Rather, the ants move into wood that's already damaged, taking an existing problem and making it worse. If you have carpenter ants nesting in your house, it's often a symptom of a more serious problem.

But they'll also come inside looking for food, so just seeing them in your kitchen doesn't mean that they're also living in your house.

Exterminators are a mixed bag. I do know some good ones, but the profession attracts more than its share of snake-oil salesmen too. Be especially wary of anyone attempting to sell you a regular scheduled service.

Thanks. I'll keep all that in mind.

For that matter, they can be living in your house without actually being in the woodwork. Some years back, we had carpenter ants appearing in the kitchen, and upon investigation we found that they were nesting under the refrigerator. Not making galleries in the wood, but just nesting in a pile on the floor. It was a complete nest, with eggs/larvae/cocoons, and they seemed to be doing perfectly fine that way. Once it was vacuumed up, that was the end of the ants in the kitchen. So, before worrying about exterminators, I'd advise just following some of them back to their nest to see if it is something you can easily clean out yourself.

Is one of these ants called Joseph, the putative father of the Messiah ant?

This genus of ants is both fascinating and daunting to ant taxonomists. Clearly the lack of a metaeural gland is not maladaptive, as there is no other genus of ants that is represented by so many species in so many places. Some sort of Camponotus may be found in notoriously ant-inhospitable places like Patagonian grasslands, tropical cloud forests and boreal conifer forests, while many more (thousands of species, literally) inhabit almost every other terrestrial habitat in between these. There are desert species and even a semiaquatic one that forages in pitcher plants. The poorly studied faunas of most tropical regions support hundreds of undescribed species. And then there is the matter of the species-rich Old World "genus" Polyrhachis, which may actually be a branch of Camponotus. All I can say is YIKES!

Camponotus/Polyrhachis -- Anything like Strumigenys/Pyramica? What do you think?

Interesting that Camponotus and Polyrachis are related since they both host a diversity of Myrmozercon mites (or at least the Australian Polyrachis and Holarctic Camponotus do). However, the idea that there may be thousands of species of camponotine Myrmozercon needing description is enough to send me directly to a bottle of Australian shiraz.

Interesting article, Alex. Since ants are beginning to swarm, many people are seeing flying ants emerge. A lot of people ask us the difference between carpenter ants and termites, since both have wings and chew wood. You just have to know the difference in wings, body, and antennas. Carpenter ants only hollow out woods where termites eat it, both are very destructive.