this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025

128 points (96.4% liked)

science

21370 readers

316 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

m3t00@lemmy.world

Joleee@lemmy.world

laverabe@lemmy.world

DeadPand@midwest.social

laverabe@lemmy.zip

128

Ant Queen Breaks the Rules of Biology by Producing Male Offspring That Are a Different Species (www.zmescience.com)

submitted 11 hours ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/science@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago

Clickbait website breaks the rules of epistemology by declaring that biology has "rules".

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 3 points 5 hours ago

Woo biology at it again!

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

This was a fun read, thanks!

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Otherkins coming to share the article in 3...

[–] MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

I love otherkin, they're so interesting and cool

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

It’s like an ant hive.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 0 points 7 hours ago

So that whore queen was misogynizing with foreign ants!

[+] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world -9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If everyone just kept producing their own species we wouldn't have goddamn evolution.

0/10 headline. Not scientific.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

That's not how evolution works. Tiny changes in your offspring doesn't create a totally different species in one generation like that, it takes a long time.

This discovery goes against our understanding of biology and the headline is fine

[–] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Yes, I understand small changes lead to evolution. I condensed fact to a short, somewhat innacurate blurb, kinda like this headline.

At least I didn't sensationalize it by saying it "breaks the rules of headlines."

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

This discovery goes against ~~our~~ my understanding of biology and the headline is fine

I think anybody with a reasonable level of understanding of biology realizes that categorization by "species" is not at all precise or objective.

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 6 points 5 hours ago

Although you're not wrong, you might want to have a look at punctuated equilibrium. Sometimes evolution goes brrr

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe this is more of philosophical question, but at some point the line to an organism being a new species is crossed and the parent would be a different species than the offspring right? Or is that line a lot fuzzier? I understand “new species” is very much a human nomenclature and construct so this might just be a moot point.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Idk the biological definition for species.

In my personal one, 2 beings are of the same species if they can reproduce and have their offspring be of the same species. Which means the offspring could theoretically breed with its parents.

Under this definition, a being can belong to multiple species.

So if A is the parent of B, and B the parent of C (because of evolution):

If B is similar enough to both A and C. But C is different enough from A, then B would be of both species A and C, like an intermediate between both species.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

2 beings are of the same species if they can reproduce and have their offspring be of the same species.

This is a very incomplete definition though. For example is every mule a different species or not a species at all? Isn't a horse also capable of producing children of different "species"? I understand that mules might not be considered a species because they're sterile. But this ant isn't reproducing sexually either.

She was essentially cloning males from another species.

The "species" classification system is simplistic, somewhat outdated, and primarily basic model suited for children.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm no biologist. It's very possible it's an incomplete definition, and I don't claim it to be a perfect one.

I guess if we apply my definition to mules, each mule would be a different species lol.

The horses one is a non-issue though. It doesn't matter that they can create offspring of different species. Since 2 horses can potentially create a horse, then the horses are of the same species.

And yes, my definition works only for sexual reproduction, since as seen by this article, asexual reproduction can get very complicated.

I wouldn't say it's outdated and mainly for children. Just like Newtonian physics are very useful if we use it correctly. Having simple models that work in the situations we encounter most is useful even for adults.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I'm pretty sure "can produce fertile offspring with each other" is a pretty common definition of a species. At least I've seen it before.

"Fertile" is key here, because while donkeys and horses can produce offspring (mules), mules are infertile, so donkeys and horses are different species.

So pretty much yes: While no single generation will differ enough from its parents to be a new species (at least very rarely), once you move a couple thousand generations, you can have a new species. However the point at which the new species "came into being" is very fuzzy.

[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Pretty sure OP was joking.