this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025

164 points (95.1% liked)

science

21506 readers

380 users here now

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

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

laverabe@lemmy.world

m3t00@lemmy.world

Joleee@lemmy.world

DeadPand@midwest.social

laverabe@lemmy.zip

164

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

submitted 1 week ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/science@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] ziggurat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Bumble bees breaks the rules of flying made by men! Arrest them now!

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

This was a fun read, thanks!

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

Otherkins coming to share the article in 3...

[–] MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

I love otherkin, they're so interesting and cool

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 3 points 1 week ago

Woo biology at it again!

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

It’s like an ant hive.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So that whore queen was misogynizing with foreign ants!

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Wrong word my friend! You were aiming for "miscegenation".

[+] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world -12 points 1 week 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 18 points 1 week 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

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 7 points 1 week ago

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

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week 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 3 points 1 week 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.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week 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.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 week 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.

[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Pretty sure OP was joking.

[–] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Thanks for getting it.

This is why I can't playfully exaggerate anymore.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week 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."