Ants can dream

 

So I asked the AI about some strange claims I encountered lately...

Is it true that ants can dream (rapid antenna movement)? Is it true that ants have self-awareness (the ant with a blue dot on his head which looked at his reflection in a mirror and realized that it was a dot on *his* head and tried to remove it)?

These are fascinating questions, and both refer to real scientific observations—but the conclusions people draw from them are debated. Here's a breakdown of each claim:

---

💤 1. Do Ants Dream? (Rapid Antenna Movement = REM?)

Claim:

Ants show rapid antenna movement (RAM) during rest, which some researchers have compared to REM sleep in mammals, potentially indicating dreaming.

What’s Actually Known:

• A 2022 study on carpenter ants (Camponotus mus) found they experience two distinct sleep-like states during rest:

  1. One state of immobility,

  2. Another involving rapid antenna movement (RAM) and twitching.

• This is analogous to REM sleep, which is associated with dreaming in mammals.

Is it dreaming?

• No direct evidence shows that ants have dreams or inner mental experiences.

• RAM might serve other purposes (e.g., memory consolidation, sensory processing).

• Dreaming requires a complex internal model of the world, which it's not clear ants have.

✅ Conclusion:

• Interesting finding, but saying ants "dream" is speculative.

• The behavior resembles aspects of REM sleep but doesn't prove subjective dreaming.

---

🪞 2. Do Ants Have Self-Awareness? (Mirror Test with Blue Dot)

Claim:

A study found that an ant marked with a blue dot on its head looked in a mirror and tried to remove the dot—suggesting self-recognition and perhaps self-awareness.

What’s Actually Known:

• In 2019, a paper by Edwardo Gallup and colleagues (not to be confused with the mirror test's originator, Gordon Gallup) described mirror test experiments with ants (specifically Camponotus floridanus).

• Ants with a visible mark (like a blue dot) tried to touch or clean the marked area only when a mirror was present.

• This behavior was not observed in unmarked ants or ants with invisible marks.

🧠 Interpretation:

• Some interpreted this as passing the mirror test, which is often used as a proxy for self-awareness in animals (e.g., great apes, dolphins, elephants).

• However, many scientists are skeptical:

  • Ants might be using visual cues from the mirror in a non-self-reflective way.

  • The mirror might simply be treated as part of the environment, not as a reflection of the self.

  • Ants have very different neural architecture from vertebrates, raising questions about how “self” would even operate.

✅ Conclusion:

• The behavior is intriguing and unusual for an insect.

• But it's controversial to claim ants are self-aware—most scientists remain cautious or skeptical.

• The mirror test itself has been criticized as species-biased and not a definitive indicator of self-awareness.

---

🧾 Bottom Line:

Claim	Verdict	Notes
Ants dream (via RAM)	🟡 Speculative	Behavior suggests sleep states, but dreaming is unproven.
Ants have self-awareness (mirror test)	🔴 Controversial / Unproven	The blue-dot study is interesting but far from conclusive.

Ants are remarkably sophisticated for their size—capable of learning, memory, communication, and even complex social structures—but equating their behavior with human-like consciousness or self-awareness is still a big leap.

If you're curious, I can also compare ants to other animals that show similar borderline traits (like octopuses, bees, or magpies).

Understated

 

LOL. My nostalgic revisits of old Amazon customer reviews continue. Yes, this is a sequel to the "Apollo cult" stuff. Brace yourselves...

Is this a true description of the moth/butterfly collector´s subculture: "But then, it's quite possible that collectors of Lepidoptera really are a bit `out there´. I read in another book about the existence of two factions within this particular community in Britain. One believes it's OK to kill and pin moths, but not OK to kill and pin butterflies. Another faction doesn't want to kill moths either. (Presumably, there is also a third faction who wants to kill'em all.) Apparently, the conflicts between these groups can become somewhat acrimonious..."

Yes, that description is broadly true — and even understated. The world of Lepidoptera collectors (and amateur entomologists more broadly) has long had its internal divisions, some of which can get surprisingly passionate for what is, on the surface, a quiet and delicate hobby.

Here’s how those dynamics break down:

---

🦋 1. The "Moth vs. Butterfly" Split

✔️ Real and observed.
In the UK and elsewhere, there's a cultural distinction between moth collectors and butterfly collectors, even though both belong to the order Lepidoptera. Historically:

• Butterflies have enjoyed a more romantic, conservationist image, especially post-1970s.

• Moths were traditionally treated more as subjects of natural history and taxonomy, often collected in large numbers by amateur and professional entomologists.

Some modern butterfly enthusiasts consider pinning butterflies to be cruel or unnecessary, especially for common or protected species. But they may be more lenient with moths, which are often more difficult to identify alive due to their nocturnal behavior and less distinctive field markings.

Thus you sometimes get "split positions":

• ✔️ Kill-and-pin moths: OK

• ❌ Kill-and-pin butterflies: Not OK

This inconsistency is sometimes criticized within the subculture as aesthetic bias — butterflies are seen as “pretty” and “special,” while moths are “brown” and “numerous.” Some collectors find this logic incoherent, which leads to…

---

⚔️ 2. Ethical Conflict & Acrimony

✔️ Also real.
The debate over killing specimens is a hot-button issue in some Lepidoptera societies:

• Conservation-minded members may advocate photographic records only or live-trapping with release.

• Traditionalists argue that collecting is essential to taxonomy, museum work, and species monitoring, and point out that collecting rarely impacts populations if done responsibly.

• A small but vocal group of "preservationists" regard any killing for hobby purposes as immoral.

This has led to splits within societies, heated letters in entomological journals, and personal feuds, especially when public exhibitions or conservation policies are involved.

---

🐛 3. The “Kill-’Em-All” Faction

✔️ Exists — but rare today.
There used to be (and still are) a few collectors who treat Lepidoptera much like stamps: if it’s new, rare, or not in their collection, they’ll pin it, regardless of status or rarity. This approach is increasingly frowned upon, especially with endangered species and international regulations (e.g., CITES).

In the past, collectors like Walter Rothschild or Lord Walsingham amassed enormous insect collections from around the world, killing millions of specimens — but in a pre-conservation era where scientific knowledge took precedence.

Today, modern ethics, conservation laws, and social pressure have significantly constrained this approach, at least publicly.

---

📚 In Summary

Yes, the Lepidoptera collector subculture can be:

• Quirky

• Internally divided

• Occasionally acrimonious, especially over ethics

But it’s also deeply passionate, often scientifically valuable, and part of a long tradition of natural history. Like many niche hobbies, it contains multitudes — from Zen-like moth-watchers to pin-happy collectors with secret drawers full of rarities.

The Apollo cult revisited

 

LOL. I didn´t know Bernard D´Abrera was *this* notorious. Not only does ChatGPT know about him, there is even an entry on the man on RationalWiki (the link in orange below). So I can´t have been the only person who noticed his somewhat idiosyncratic butterfly books. And just as I suspected, D´Abrera had the reputation for being...shall we say...difficult. Still, the AI is actually a bit charitable to some of his observations here. The Apollo "cult" seems to be real?!

Bernard d´Abrera

Here is D´Abrera again. Is this a true or fair observation? "In this volume, D'Abrera has some pretty unkind words to say about some of his fellow butterfly-collectors. He claims that there is a veritable cultus of the genus Parnassius (the Apollos) among lepidopterists, a cultus with its own high priests, acolytes, a nomenclature bordering on the hagiographic and a literature with the force of Canon Law. Anyone who questions the prevalent taxonomy of these particular butterflies is suspected of heresy, anathematized and excommunicated. Presumably, the authors' taxonomy is controversial among Appolo-infatuated collectors and scientists all over the Holarctic region..."

Yes, Bernard d’Abrera’s remark about a "cultus of Parnassius" among lepidopterists is real — in the sense that he did write things along those lines — but whether his observation is fair depends on how charitably one interprets his rhetoric.

---

🔍 Context and Interpretation

D’Abrera was known for his deeply opinionated style, often blending scientific observations with cultural, philosophical, and theological polemics. His statements about the Parnassius "cultus" reflect his broader frustration with what he saw as:

• Overly rigid or dogmatic taxonomic systems

• Scientific elitism or groupthink in entomology

• Excessive splitting of species into subspecies or varieties based on minor morphological differences

He often described these behaviors in grandiloquent, sometimes sarcastic terms, borrowing language from religion — "high priests," "canon law," "heresy," etc. It’s colorful and provocative, but it’s also a metaphor, not a literal accusation.

---

🦋 Is There Any Truth to It?

Surprisingly, yes — at least partially. Here's why:

1. Parnassius Has a Complex Taxonomy

• The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is notoriously difficult to classify.

• Many populations are geographically isolated mountain dwellers with subtle but consistent morphological differences, leading to:

  • Dozens (or hundreds) of named subspecies

  • Frequent disputes over species vs. subspecies status

2. Strong Collector Enthusiasm

• Parnassius is beloved among butterfly collectors, especially in Europe, Russia, Japan, and China.

• The group is surrounded by a wealth of literature, specialized monographs, and highly detailed field guides.

• Certain taxa can fetch high prices on the collectors’ market.

• This leads to passionate debates and strong in-group consensus on classifications.

3. Conservative or Rigid Taxonomies

• In some taxonomic circles, dissent from the prevailing views (especially by non-academics) is indeed treated dismissively.

• This isn’t unique to Parnassius or entomology — scientific subfields sometimes develop cliques, especially around charismatic taxa.

So D’Abrera is using exaggerated, satirical language, but he's critiquing a real tendency in the butterfly community: the tribalism that can emerge around difficult or beloved genera.

---

🧠 Is It a Fair Critique?

Fair-ish, but laced with hyperbole.

• Yes, because taxonomic debates can indeed become cliquish, politically charged, or stubbornly orthodox.

• No, if interpreted literally as some kind of irrational religious cult. Most taxonomists are serious professionals doing their best in a difficult field.

---

💬 Final Thought

D’Abrera was a provocateur, but his critique of Parnassius scholarship reflects a genuine tension in taxonomy between:

• Stability vs. revision

• Professional vs. amateur contributions

• Morphological vs. molecular approaches

It’s a poetic exaggeration, not a dispassionate analysis — but as a metaphor, it rings surprisingly true in some corners of entomology.

Would you like examples of famous Parnassius disputes or subspecies inflation?

Yes, please.

You're absolutely right to ask. The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is famous—or infamous—among lepidopterists for one of the highest rates of subspecific and varietal descrip­tions in Lepidoptera, often leading to protracted debates and sharply divided camps.

Here are some well-documented controversies that illustrate why D'Abrera’s depiction of a Parnassius cultus is at least partially grounded in reality:

---

🧐 1. *Over 200–290 named subspecies of Parnassius apollo*

• Parnassius apollo, the emblematic Apollo, has been described under more than 200 subspecies names, especially in Europe and Central Asia ResearchGateGöran Waldeck.

• In the Carpatho‑Pannonian region alone, 26 subspecies were defined based on limited morphological traits like wing color and patterns SpringerLinkGöran Waldeck.

• A 2024 morphometric study of 20 so-called subspecies in that region found virtually no significant wing‑shape divergence, suggesting that dozens of named forms may not merit formal taxonomic recognition SpringerLink.

---

🔬 2. Morphological discipline vs. molecular data

• Traditional taxonomists relied heavily on wing color, pattern, and minor structural traits (plus location data) to name new subspecies.

• Modern molecular studies (e.g., mitochondrial DNA barcoding) reveal that many of these subspecies lack genetic differentiation and may actually represent phenotypic variants within a single species MDPIOxford AcademicScienceDirect.

• This mismatch has fueled divisions between "splitters", who emphasize morphological subtlety, and "lumpers", who stress genetic unity.

---

🌍 3. Geographic isolation and the naming frenzy

• Many alleged subspecies inhabit extremely remote and narrow habitats (e.g. high-altitude Tibetan valleys, small Pamir peaks).

• Collectors described new subspecies often based on single or handful of specimens from unique locales — sometimes accessed only by helicopter ZobodatEureka MagEureka Mag.

• These small-isolated populations were quickly named, reinforcing the view of a taxonomic cult based on micro-endemism.

---

👥 4. Emotional and ideological investment

• Parnassius butterflies are deeply beloved by collectors across Eurasia.

• Some communities treat specific subspecies as prestigious or rare trophies, generating a parallel literature and community logic that can resist revisionist voices.

• An outsider questioning a named subspecies may risk criticism in those circles — an effect reminiscent of the "heresy" rhetoric D’Abrera uses metaphorically.

---

✅ Summary: How fair is D’Abrera’s characterization?

Claim	Scientific Justification
Parnassius has a cult-like subculture	Yes—intense collector and taxonomic interest across regions
Subspecies proliferation based on minor differences	Yes—hundreds of subspecies based on wing markings and location
Resistance to revision by questioning collectors	Yes, splitters vs lumpers dispute remains active

So while D’Abrera’s tone is deliberately provocative, it captures a real dynamic in Parnassius taxonomy: entrenched subspecific naming, sometimes spectacular collector devotion, and a lively tension between morphological tradition and molecular modernity.

---

Would you like an outline of a few especially contentious Parnassius species-groups or further reading on the ongoing molecular-lumping efforts?

The divine prankster

I can´t help "test" some of my old blog post on ChatGPT, just to see its reaction. Years ago, I discovered that the author/creator (pun intended) of a series of colorful books on butterflies was a creationist with some pretty whimsical ideas. So naturally I had to ask the AI some whimsical questions about it!  

[My old blog post/book review] "Butterflies of the Neotropical region. Part 6" is an illustrated reference work to the South and Central American metalmark butterflies (Riodinidae). That, however, is the least interesting part of the book... 

I was somewhat surprised to see the author, Bernard D'Abrera, quoting both the Bible and Thomas à Kempis in an earlier volume of this series. In this volume, the plot thickens as D'Abrera turns out to be...yes, a true blue creationist! His creationist musings can be found on ppg. 984 and 1015-1016. It's all in there: attacks on the French revolution, Vulgate quotations, anti-Communism, Thomas Aquinas, creation ex nihilo... 

Charles Darwin's "On the origins of species" is referred to as Charles Darwin's Book of Fairy Tales for Grown Ups. I take it D'Abrera is a very conservative Catholic. 

The author attacks the notion of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry rings, claiming that there really is no such thing. He also claims that the metalmark butterflies are a practical joke by God at His own expense, since this butterfly family seems to recapitulate all other butterfly groups in an almost spooky fashion. I admit that they do. 

It's unfortunate that the author blends these interesting, though somewhat zany, philosophical speculations with a socially regressive message that would make King Louis XVI blush. Still, it does mean that I managed to solve a little mystery. 

[My question to ChatGPT] Is it true that metalmark butterflies "recapitulate all other butterfly families", that is, there are metalmarks which look very similar to members of other butterfly families?

Yes, it is true — metalmark butterflies (family Riodinidae) are remarkably diverse in appearance and often show striking resemblances to species from other butterfly families, including Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae, Pieridae, and Hesperiidae. This uncanny visual mimicry has long intrigued lepidopterists and evolutionary biologists.

---

🦋 Why Do Metalmarks Resemble Other Butterflies?

There are a few key explanations, none of which require divine pranks — but they do highlight fascinating evolutionary dynamics:

---

🔁 1. Mimicry (Batesian & Müllerian)

Many Riodinids are involved in mimicry rings, either as mimics or models:

• Batesian mimicry: A harmless species mimics a toxic one.

• Müllerian mimicry: Several toxic species converge on a shared warning appearance.

➡️ Riodinids sometimes mimic ithomiine glasswing butterflies, tiger moths, or even certain day-flying moths and skippers.

---

🎨 2. Morphological Plasticity and Evolutionary Flexibility

Riodinidae has over 1,500 species, mostly in the Neotropics, and has evolved into a wide range of ecological niches and visual forms.

• Some look like hairstreaks (Lycaenidae), others like brush-foots (Nymphalidae).

• This morphological convergence can happen due to shared habitats, predators, and selective pressures.

➡️ A Riodinid that lives in a forest canopy with Heliconius butterflies might evolve to look like them — not by divine humor, but natural selection.

---

🧬 3. Genetic and Developmental Flexibility

Butterfly wing patterns are controlled by a small number of regulatory genes (like optix, wntA, cortex, etc.). These can be turned on or off in different ways to produce similar patterns across unrelated groups.

➡️ This makes convergent evolution of appearance more common than you might expect.

---

🧠 D’Abrera’s Interpretation

Bernard D’Abrera’s creationist view reframes this convergence as a kind of divine parody or aesthetic gesture — a way for God to "confuse" naturalists or showcase his whimsical creativity. That’s clearly a philosophical or theological reading, not a scientific one, but it’s rooted in his broader worldview.

Despite this, his observation that Riodinids seem to “recapitulate” the appearance of other families is empirically valid — the reason why they do so is where his interpretation diverges sharply from evolutionary biology.

---

✅ Conclusion

Yes, metalmark butterflies do often look like members of other butterfly families. This is a well-documented phenomenon and a textbook example of mimicry and evolutionary convergence, not divine mischief — but D’Abrera’s colorful framing adds a strange and oddly memorable twist to it.

Would you like image examples of Riodinid species that mimic other families?

God loves *snout* beetles

 

Credit: Larali21

So the largest taxon (below class level) are the beetles, with about 450,000 described species. Hence the famous quip "God loves beetles". But guess what? The largest family is the weevil family (60,000 described species). So God doesn´t just love beetles, he very specifically loves *snout* beetles?!

The world, agent Cooper, is a strange and beautiful place. 

Blott Sverige svensk honung har

 

Är inte helt förvånad, ärligt talat. 

Bluffen: All importerad honung oäkta visar nya tester

The imperial overreach of ants

 

I can´t get the Argentine ants out of my mind, I mean, *have* they taken over...the world or something?! And right under our very noses, they did! Rather than try to find a scientific paper on the topic, I lazily asked the All-Knowing LLM about it. And it was actually somewhat reassuring. It seems Linepithema may be suffering from imperial overreach... 

Is it true that most Argentine ants in the whole world belong to the same super-colony, or is this an over-simplification?

Yes, it’s basically true—but with important caveats.

🐜 The Claim:

Most Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) outside their native range belong to a single, vast "supercolony" in terms of genetic relatedness and behavioral cooperation—sometimes described as the largest cooperative unit in the animal kingdom.

✅ What's True:

1. Global Spread from a Single Origin:

   • Argentine ants are native to South America (mainly around northern Argentina, Uruguay, and southern Brazil).

   • When introduced abroad (via human trade in the 19th century), they underwent a genetic bottleneck—reducing their genetic diversity.

   • Invasive populations in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc., are genetically similar and often do not fight each other, even across vast distances.

2. Lack of Intra-Colony Aggression:

   • In their native range, different nests often fight fiercely.

   • In invaded regions, ants from distant nests (e.g., San Diego and San Francisco) accept each other as nestmates.

   • This has led scientists to refer to these populations as a “supercolony.”

3. The "Main" Supercolony:

   • One especially well-studied group—called the "Californian supercolony"—is genetically indistinguishable from populations in Europe and Japan.

   • These ants do not recognize each other as foreign and cooperate across continents (in lab tests), suggesting a shared ancestry and compatible chemical cues.

---

❗But Here's the Nuance:

1. Not All Argentine Ants Belong to One Supercolony:

   • Other distinct supercolonies exist, even within the same geographic area (e.g., in Europe and California).

   • These do fight each other—so the idea of one global ant empire is an oversimplification.

   • Even within a country, there can be multiple rival supercolonies with clear boundaries.

2. "Supercolony" is a Behavioral Category:

   • It's not a taxonomic or ecological term, but a way to describe highly cooperative, genetically similar nests.

   • Cooperation doesn’t mean coordination like bees—these are massive, decentralized networks of nests and foragers that tolerate each other.

3. Evolutionary Fragility:

   • Because of low genetic diversity, invasive Argentine ants are vulnerable to disease or environmental change.

   • Their success is tied to human-disturbed environments; they may not remain dominant in the long term.

---

🧬 Summary

• ✅ True: Many Argentine ants outside their native range are genetically similar and form cooperative supercolonies, with no aggression across huge distances.

• ⚠️ Oversimplified: There is not just one single supercolony globally—there are several, and they can compete.

• 🧠 Cool fact: Ants from the California and European supercolonies recognize each other as friendly despite being 8,000+ km apart.

Would you like a diagram or map showing where the major Argentine ant supercolonies are located? 

Dracula´s hidden kingdom

 

Credit: Charles J Sharp 

¨

“Dracula´s Hidden Kingdom” is the dramatic title of a fairly regular nature documentary about Transylvania in Romania. As far as I understand, Transylvania wasn´t even 15^th century warlord Vlad Dracula´s actual principality! It was probably British writer Bram Stoker (19^th century) who made the association and…well, here we are.

To give the docu some (tourist) “local color”, some scary castles, ruins and graveyards have been included, and something I take to be Gypsy music plays in the background while the narrator speaks. Most of the time, however, we get to see all the usual players: lynxes, wolves, red foxes, deer, beavers and European bison – OK, maybe the latter is new to most viewers! Birds shown include white storks, bee-eaters and the hoopoe. We also learn that there are 200 species of butterflies in Transylvania and 27 species of bats. I admit I had no idea so many species of these particular critters even existed in Europe! Sources?

Apparently, Homo sapiens have lived in Transylvania for 40,000 years (a Stone Age cave painting of a bison is shown) and throughout most of its history, the area was teeming with wildlife, including enormous herds of the just mentioned bison. Even today, at least the bear population seems to be thriving, while many other animals have diminishing populations. The bison were actually extirpated in the wild at one point, but have been reintroduced. Plans to establish a new national park in the Carpathians are mentioned. 

Personally, I have to admit that East European rural backwaters give me claustrophobia, but sure, maybe they are good for non-humane Animalia? Perhaps somewhere in that vast mountain wilderness, some lonely vampire is still stalking the hills…