44 replies to this topic

[Batspiderfish]

So, I remembered that mrmacophyl from the The Ant Farm and Myrmecology Forum (who I've only just figured out is this forum's own gcsnelling) was working on a revision of New World Dorylinae, the subfamily of true army ants.

 

I posed him the following request:

 

In one of the other forums, there is a bit of a debate going on as to whether it is acceptable or sustainable for hobbyists to collect colonies of army ants. Seeing as how they are uncommon, how new colonies are seldom produced, and how they are generally very difficult to care for (as many of ours are specialist predators of other ants), I argue that hobbyists definitely should not collect colonies of these ants as pets. Others suggest that so long as a given species is not officially threatened or endangered, that collection would be inconsequential. I was hoping you would be willing to briefly summarize your thoughts on this, seeing as how you've devoted professional attention to these ants.

 

And he responded:

 

"(It is) Definitely not a good idea to collect colony queens of these ants. Unlike many other genera, Neivamyrmex and other army ant genera do not have nuptial flights as such. Instead males fly and hope to locate an appropriate colony with receptive virgin queens. Queens apparently are not produced every year and in very limited numbers. Considering the 100% death rate of collected material, collecting colony queens of a species whether officially endangered or threatened or what ever is not at all a sustainable practice and should not be done for anything other than valid scientific purposes."

 

This, and the poorly-understood nature of unabundant doryline colonies, indicates that it is definitely not appropriate for hobbyists (especially in North America) to keep army ants. I urge our hobbyists to appreciate and learn from Dorylinae but not in any way which could potentially threaten them. Furthermore, the vanity associated with keeping ants of this kind is wholly inappropriate. Remember that we are part of a growing community, and that we must be conscientious of our methodologies to work towards an ecologically sound future for the hobby.

 

I believe this is G. C. Snelling's paper for the New World revision: http://antbase.org/a...21290/21290.pdf

Here's a recent paper I found about Dorylinae, a generic revision: http://zookeys.penso...les.php?id=9427

Edited by Batspiderfish, April 29 2017 - 9:41 AM.

[Spamdy]

agreed

[Superant33]

With continued habitat loss throughout the world, we may forced to attempt to keep some species in captivity. However, I think a more prudent move would be to set aside large tracts of land for the sake of biodiversity.

[Batspiderfish]

With continued habitat loss throughout the world, we may forced to attempt to keep some species in captivity. However, I think a more prudent move would be to set aside large tracts of land for the sake of biodiversity.

 

Leaving that task to hobbyists will likely do more harm than good. Such an effort must be coordinated by those who are qualified to make that decision, rather than used as an excuse to keep them for what are actually other reasons. This attitude has been reflected in the tropical fish trade, but we instead see overharvesting of many species from threatened waterways. I agree that supporting the preservation of habitats instead of selling them off for private or public development is very, very important.

Edited by Batspiderfish, April 29 2017 - 8:26 AM.

[Barristan]

Yep over collecting and trophy hunting should be exclusive to scientists I know . Like in this example. Every university and college with a department of biology collects huge amount of specimens every year with questionable use (especially for the species themself).

 

And yet again you didn't provide any evidence that it is harmful to the population of army ants in China.

 

If he is really that concerned why does he restrict his answer to hobbyists?

 

This, and the poorly-understood nature of unabundant doryline colonies, indicates that it is definitely not appropriate for hobbyists (especially in North America) to keep army ants. I urge our hobbyists to appreciate and learn from Dorylinae but not in any way which could potentially threaten them. Furthermore, the vanity associated with keeping ants of this kind is wholly inappropriate. Remember that we are part of a growing community, and that we must be conscientious of our methodologies to work towards an ecologically sound future for the hobby.

 

 

Oh I know destroying nature for science is always ok and should not even be questioned.

Edited by Barristan, April 29 2017 - 8:47 AM.

[Batspiderfish]

Yep over collecting and trophy hunting should be exclusive to scientists I know . Like in this example. Every university and college with a department of biology collects huge amount of specimens every year with questionable use (especially for the species themself).

 

And yet again you didn't provide any evidence that it is harmful to the population of army ants in China.

 

If he is really that concerned why does he restrict his answer to hobbyists?

 

This, and the poorly-understood nature of unabundant doryline colonies, indicates that it is definitely not appropriate for hobbyists (especially in North America) to keep army ants. I urge our hobbyists to appreciate and learn from Dorylinae but not in any way which could potentially threaten them. Furthermore, the vanity associated with keeping ants of this kind is wholly inappropriate. Remember that we are part of a growing community, and that we must be conscientious of our methodologies to work towards an ecologically sound future for the hobby.

 

 

Oh I know destroying nature for science is always ok and should not even be questioned.

 

Seeing as how you are arguing for extending the removal of colonies, the burden of proof is on you.

 

Not knowing enough about their ecology, which requires sensitivity and research, does not mean it is ok to blindly put them at further risk. That would be absurd.

 

Myrmecologists and the senior hobbyists which make this community possible are actually worth listening to. Like, we can go on and on and on about this if you want, but you have no platform, background, nor evidence to make this argument, so why is anybody supposed to listen?

 

It has been established that most doryline army ants are uncommon within their range, produce one or fewer viable queen per year, and are hitherto impossible to sustain in captivity, which is plenty of reason for me to suggest keeping them out of the hands of naive hobbyists who are almost certainly incapable of providing for the colony. Hobbyists do not even provide usable data to justify the sacrifice, making it particularly tragic. Vanity and possessiveness are pretty flimsy reasons to partake in that tragedy.

Edited by Batspiderfish, April 29 2017 - 9:37 AM.

[klawfran3]

Yep over collecting and trophy hunting should be exclusive to scientists I know . Like in this example. Every university and college with a department of biology collects huge amount of specimens every year with questionable use (especially for the species themself).

 

And yet again you didn't provide any evidence that it is harmful to the population of army ants in China.

 

If he is really that concerned why does he restrict his answer to hobbyists?

 

This, and the poorly-understood nature of unabundant doryline colonies, indicates that it is definitely not appropriate for hobbyists (especially in North America) to keep army ants. I urge our hobbyists to appreciate and learn from Dorylinae but not in any way which could potentially threaten them. Furthermore, the vanity associated with keeping ants of this kind is wholly inappropriate. Remember that we are part of a growing community, and that we must be conscientious of our methodologies to work towards an ecologically sound future for the hobby.

 

 

Oh I know destroying nature for science is always ok and should not even be questioned.

I've worked for a scientific museum dedicated to research and specimen collection. First off, most of the specimens are received from vehicle strikes or salvages, god knows how many roadkill  animals I have prepped there. Any of the collected animals are LEGALLY collected through many many permits and are given the express permission to do so through multiple government agencies. Scientists aren't running around willy nilly with nets and guns shooting everything they see, they have specific limits as to how much they can take, when they can take, why they can take, what they can take, how they can take, and who can do it. There is also quite a lot you can learn about n animal after its dead, such as diet, genetics, risks of pollution and death (bioaccumulation is a huge one), etc. and you get to be able to find a whole plethora of relevant information on a specimen even though it is dead and has been collected. Scientists also don't collect for trophies" either, I have no idea where you even got that statement.

That article you sent is inflammatory and in my opinion downright offensive to people who need to collect specimens to learn about them. It's poorly written and unlike news which should NOT be biased, the whole article is telling you how to feel about it. That's not reporting, it's sensationalism. THey even say that the bird is not in any imminent danger, yet they still decide to cause mass anger and fury over the fact that a man collected a species in order to (probably since the exact reason isn't stated) determine the best boundaries to set up in order to protect the most species, and to have a collection of the birds in the area in case one happens to disappear. Scientific collection *helps* protect species, even though it seems like it would only hurt them. I'll bet you $20 if it wasn't a cute bird but a boring looking bug nobody would bother to report on it.

One of my good friends (who's an entomologist and has discovered multiple species) once told me that if collecting a few specimens for a hobby or scientific research causes the species to go extinct, then it was already destined to do so. I'm sure there are a few exceptions to that statement of scientists or hobbyists collecting them to extinction, but overall many threatened or endangered species can still lose a bit of their population without going extinct, although it can make it harder for them to recover (I'm also talking about a significant percentage of their population. one specimen won't really affect their population like the kingfisher you sent.)

 

That being said, I am still against collecting queens of army ants due to the fact that their mode of reproduction makes them easily exploited. With their low reproductive rates it only makes sense to not collect queens for the hobby, especially since all known attempts have been failures.

Edited by klawfran3, April 29 2017 - 9:51 AM.

[Antony]

User deleted

Edited by Antony, April 29 2017 - 9:49 AM.

[Barristan]

Seeing as how you are arguing for extending the removal of colonies, the burden of proof is on you.

 

 

 

Not knowing enough about their ecology, which requires sensitivity and research, does not mean it is ok to blindly put them at further risk. That would be absurd.

 

Myrmecologists and the senior hobbyists which make this community possible are actually worth listening to. Like, we can go on and on and on about this if you want, but you have no platform, background, nor evidence to make this argument, so why is anybody supposed to listen?

 

It has been established that most doryline army ants are uncommon within their range, produce one or fewer viable queen per year, and are hitherto impossible to sustain in captivity, which is plenty of reason for me to suggest keeping them out of the hands of naive hobbyists who are almost certainly incapable of providing for the colony. Hobbyists do not even provide usable data to justify the sacrifice, making it particularly tragic. Vanity and possessiveness are pretty flimsy reasons to partake in that tragedy.

 

 

The proof is on you since you made the argument that it is harmful so again: provide data about how much the species is threatened in china (the whole thing started with someone posting a picture of a army ant colony from china...). Than you also need data about the amount of colonies taken from environment yearly. Than you can conclude if it is harmful or not.

 

Everyone is worth listening to, but that doesn't mean that they don't have to provide evidence and that I believe everything they say only because they are myrmecologists. There are also climate change deniers with a PH.D should I believe them too without further questioning? And I don't believe that the community I come from was made possible by any myrmecologist or senior ant hobbyist. Yes we can go on and I won't listen to you either since you are unwilling to provide any evidence for your argument instead you just use argumentum ad hominem to make your point.

 

Your on your way to separation of the community if you continue like this. A thing we already had in German ant keeping community.

 

This will be my last post in this forum. I wish you the best and hopefully the elitists won't destroy the community like they did in Germany.

Edited by Barristan, April 29 2017 - 10:18 AM.

[Antony]

I totally agree with Barristan. This started with a photo. nothing came out of it.

[Connectimyrmex]

I totally agree with Barristan. This started with a photo. nothing came out of it.

Antony, that wasn't really an argument you had to fight. That guy said it himself: he only kept a few workers. You kind of made an argument out of that. It's fine, though. Some people have interests in different types of ants, and I've actually had an urge to keep Neivamyrmex species myself.

Edited by Hawaiiant, April 29 2017 - 11:40 AM.

[Serafine]

Leaving that task to hobbyists will likely do more harm than good. Such an effort must be coordinated by those who are qualified to make that decision, rather than used as an excuse to keep them for what are actually other reasons.

Fortunately most of these experts are busy doing taxonomy and wildlife studies and almost none of them care about actual antkeeping, unless it's using them for (sometimes questionable) studies - and even there they barely ever use more than a dozen (mostly already well-known) species. Also the Trumpistanian administration's intents of cutting down costs for environmental studies to bare minimum (who needs nature anyway? who needs knowledge at all? it just causes people to use their brains and raise uncomfortable questions...) will surely enhance the chances of it happening.
 

This attitude has been reflected in the tropical fish trade, but we instead see overharvesting of many species from threatened waterways. I agree that supporting the preservation of habitats instead of selling them off for private or public development is very, very important.

Saving nature is always important. Fortunately the great leader of Trumpistan has just signed another decree (we all know decrees are a totally democratic way of running a country) that allows them to destroy even more of it. So they're clearly taking the issue serious.
 

Your on your way to separation of the community if you continue like this. A thing we already had in German ant keeping community.
 
This will be my last post in this forum. I wish you the best and hopefully the elitists won't destroy the community like they did in Germany.

The german antkeeping community used to be a toxic hostile wasteland with a number of elitists trying to enforce the standards of university studies to what essentially is casual petkeeping (despite their often lacking personal experience in actually keeping them for a duration that is longer than the current study). Effectively it killed the connection between scientists and antkeepers and now both of them only sparsely interact, if at all.

Is this really what we want? A complete separation of research and application for a group of animals where even scientists barely know how to keep them properly? Do some people really think the antkeeping community would benefit from this?

Edited by Serafine, April 29 2017 - 12:12 PM.

[gcsnelling]

The separation between hobbyist and scientist goes back a lot further than that and in almost every area of science. There are people on both side which are so full of them selves that they think their opinion is the only one that matters. Both sides have a pretty equal share of the blame.However that does not excuse poaching and smuggling of another countries biological diversity, and it not just ant keepers. I have had this same discussion with butterfly collectors who feel it is not only their right but their duty to poach and smuggle lepidoptera specimens out of a given country in an effort to protest what they feel are unreasonable laws imposed by the country they are smuggling from. It is that exact attitude which is one of the reason many countries have imposed such strict laws.  There are a number of very unique and rare reptile and amphibian species which have recently been discovered, I expect any day now to see them on various underground (mostly european) price lists.

Having said that there are species which are totally unsuitable for captive keeping for one reason or another. Army ants certainly fall in to that category.

Edited by gcsnelling, April 29 2017 - 12:22 PM.

[Serafine]

Having said that there are species which are totally unsuitable for captive keeping for one reason or another. Army ants certainly fall in to that category.

I'm pretty sure though you don't need to ask a Myrmecologist to get to that conclusion. The "collective swarm intelligence" of the antkeeping community has pretty much the same opinion on this matter.

It's like not having to ask a cat scientist if it's a good idea to keep a hyena in your house.

Edited by Serafine, April 29 2017 - 2:43 PM.

[Batspiderfish]

 

Having said that there are species which are totally unsuitable for captive keeping for one reason or another. Army ants certainly fall in to that category.

I'm pretty sure though you don't need to ask a Myrmecologist to get to that conclusion. The "collective swarm intelligence" of the antkeeping community has pretty much the same opinion on this matter.

It's like not having to ask a cat scientist if it's a good idea to keep a hyena in your house.

 

 

If this is so controversial, then perhaps not everybody is on the same page. I also don't understand the comparative relevancy between asking a myrmecologist about ants and asking a felinologist about a canid.

[Formicarius]

I don't see the point since you can't keep them.

Even some Zoos/Scientific institutions have tried keeping them before and spectaculary failed at it, and they had huge amounts of resources no average hobbyist would ever have.

 

So why would anyone collect something that is pretty much guaranteed to die anyway?

Seems stupid and childish.

[Serafine]

If this is so controversial, then perhaps not everybody is on the same page.

Just because a handful of people isn't on the same side as everyone else doesn't make a topic controversial. There's millions of people still claiming the earth is flat. Also there's graduated scientists who don't believe in evolution or climate change, having a degree doesn't say much about having common sense.

I also don't understand the comparative relevancy between asking a myrmecologist about ants and asking a felinologist about a canid.

Please check your science. Since when are hyenas canidae?

[Batspiderfish]

 

I also don't understand the comparative relevancy between asking a myrmecologist about ants and asking a felinologist about a canid.

Please check your science. Since when are hyenas canidae?

 

 

Science checked, thank you.

 

That was surprising.

[Canadian anter]

I think another detail is food. It would be like feeding 3 ant colonies per day in some some species. Nomamyrmex has been observed to raid mature Atta colonies.

[Reacker]

 The "collective swarm intelligence" of the antkeeping community has pretty much the same opinion on this matter.

 

 

 

Not sure I would use the word "intelligence" to describe the collective swarm of ant keepers.