Think of yourself as a desert ant. You leave your nest to search for food early in the morning in the deserts of Tunisia, except you do not know where to find food. You, therefore, walk randomly in the desert in a circuitous outward path from your nest until you find food. If you would find food, how do you get it back to your home? How do you go back without having left for yourself any traces or signs in the wasteland, without knowing where you located, and most importantly, without ending up stranded in the scorching heat of the desert? Could you accomplish coming back each day with food? Well, desert ants can.

To find out how ants can do this, scientists observed their behavior, and surprisingly they have found that ants did not follow back on the same trail they randomly took after they left their nests. Instead, ants took a direct route as if they already knew where the nest exactly located. How do these ants find the closest way and shortest distance to their nest from their current locations? Former studies had found that red and forest ants secrete a chemical substance to mark their paths. They leave a trail of chemical scents or visual traces behind them—like leaving a trail of breadcrumbs to help you find your way home. However, the structure of desert sands and conditions are not consonant with containing chemicals that will carry an odor or leave visual cues. Even if such markings have made, it is hard to guarantee that they will remain intact long enough considering the harsh conditions of the desert. As in Hansel and Gretel fairy tale kids who could not return home for the breadcrumbs they had left on the trail eaten by birds. Therefore, these desert ants must be equipped with another cognitive mechanism so that they can return to their nests before succumbing to the midday heat.  

Black desert ants (Cataglyphis fortis) emerge from their nests in the heat of desert sand, which rises to 70 degrees with the rise of the morning sun, to search for the remains of other insects that were not as heat resistant as they are. They can only survive for one hour on the hot sand and under the blazing sun, which means that within an hour, they must find their food and bring it back home without getting lost. The journey is quite arduous and dangerous each day. If the slightest confusion occurs and they are not able to return to their nest in time, then it could cost them their lives.

Scientists conducted a series of research in the scorching deserts of Tunisia to find out how desert ants take their food to their nests in the shortest route possible. Researchers first determined an anthill and plotted the terrain around it to set up a coordinate plane. They observed that the ants left their nests very early in the morning to begin their daily search for food, and many of them eventually found grubs that had been planted by the scientists. However, researchers moved the ants to locations that they had not previously been to after the ant began carrying the food back to their nests. The attempt was to understand whether there was a “sign placement system” within the ants. This system would encourage the ant to find its last known location, in this instance where it had picked up, then find its way back home. However, the ant instead began heading directly to its nest. It was as if the ant determined its position concerning its nest and set off for it immediately. This experiment was repeated on many ants numerous times and with the same consistent results. The ants, as soon as they had placed on the ground, moved to the nest relative to there. With a wondrous intrinsic coding of some neurons in their nervous systems, they traveled the distance between their new location and the nest in the shortest way possible. In addition to this, the margin of error was very nominal; they found their nests with a ten percent error in the average distance of 500-meters and with an error of only two degrees in angle. Additionally, a fascinating discovery revealed that the ants could calculate errors in their navigation systems. As they approach their destination, they would make adjustments if they need to by moving back and forth in parallel lines to reach the nest with minimum error.

Scientists determined that desert ants have about a thousand lenses in their compound eyes (remember that a human eye has only one lens) and 80 lenses in each of their eyes that can detect polarized light that comes from different points in the sky. Polarized light occurs when sunlight enters the atmosphere of Earth, hits air molecules and other particles, and then scatters in all directions. This dispersion leads to polarization, and the light that starts to vibrate in many planes begins to vibrate in only one plane. Therefore, the strongest of them is a distinct polarization that always makes a 90-degree angle towards the sun. The lens system in the eyes of desert ants uses this polarization to form a kind of Sky Map. These ants will occasionally stop and robotically move their heads while returning to their nest. This brief period allows the ants to make this sky map by surveying the sky and making a mental note of its layout. Researchers believe that ants can then calculate the direction that they need to travel to return to their nest. They repeat this movement along the way to continually update their sky maps. If they cannot find their home, then they utilize a patterned search method with a set of circular motions. It means that each ant knows how far it is from their nest at every point of their journey.

Then, how do ants find their direction to the nest? Perhaps they were guided by the position of the sun in the sky is. To test this hypothesis, researchers placed a set of mirrors to make ants perceive the sun in a different state than where it ordinarily would be. It observed that the ants changed their directions according to the new state of the sun. However, this finding raised another question; researchers wondered how the time of day would affect the ants since the sun moves across the sky during the day. However, this finding raised another question; researchers wondered how the time of day would affect the ants since the sun moves across the sky during the day.

In another part of the experiment, the researchers caught the ants after they found the bait, closed a box over them, and kept them inside the box for several hours so that they could not see the sun and its movements. It expected that the ants would have trouble finding their way back after they were released since a long time had passed, and the sun was in a drastically different position in the sky. However, they once again returned home by using the shortest distance possible. It understood that the desert ants were aware that time was passing even though they could not see the sun.

We now understand that ants determine their direction home by using the sun, but we still do not know how they figure out the distance they must travel to return to their nest. Researchers have developed three hypotheses to explore this phenomenon. The first hypothesis was the energy hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the ants were able to know how much energy they needed on the way back by calculating it they had spent until they reached their food. The depletion of their energy meant the end of their journey. An ant loaded with extra weights to test this hypothesis as soon as it reached its food. The scientists thought that if their body weight increased, then they would not be able to strike reach the nest since they would spend more energy on the return trip. However, in this case, it did not affect the ants, and they returned home in the shortest way possible regardless of their weight.

The second hypothesis was the optical-flow hypothesis. In this hypothesis, it believed that the ants had visual memory, and this was how they remembered the way back. To prove this, scientists prevented the ants from seeing their surroundings by blindfolding the ants when they found their food source. However, the blindfold did not prevent the ants from obtaining the shortest distance back home. As a follow-up to this experiment, the researchers placed an extensive television screen in front of the ants showing an endless desert on the television screen to make the ants feel as if they had crossed the entire desert in this simulation. They used various types of simulations, but the result did not change; the ants found their way.

The last test involved the pedometer hypothesis. It surmised that ants could be counting their steps to determine how far they had traveled. To test whether they were doing so, researchers attached stilts made of hair strands to the legs of one group of ants after they found the food. As their legs now extended, they could move with longer scale steps. Another group of ants had their legs cut below the knee, thus shortened to increase the number of steps needed to walk the required distance back. They then observed the return journey of both groups of ants. The results were astounding; the ants with shorter legs had concluded their course before reaching the nest, while the ants with longer legs ended up passing the nest. Thus, it understood that the ants counted their steps according to the distance they traveled.

The findings reveal that the ants are created with an internal system that keeps track of the steps they take and re-calibrates itself on the way back. People make these complex calculations with measuring instruments and by knowing the laws of trigonometry. However, these small creatures find their way directly back without using any tools or computer applications. They do not use their perception to find direction, and they do not use any other directional methods because they all remember direction and distance as they move forward. If you look at this situation, what would be your simplest explanation? You can only have one definition: These little creatures can measure distances and angles precisely by applying mathematical calculations and trigonometry within their conditions. Since the first day of their existence, these creatures show only a few of the shreds of evidence of the divine power created them out of nothing with wondrous systems and superior abilities in their bodies.

I have put my trust in God, my Lord, and your Lord. No living creature is there, but He holds it by its forelock and keeps it under His complete control. Undoubtedly, my Lord is on a straight path (He governs all that exists and carries out His decrees rightly and with absolute justice). (Surah Hud, 56)

The minimum work principle is the force used on deeper levels (the maximum economy principle in other words). According to this, every action in the book of the universe is completed in a fashion to cause minimal energy consumption in the present binding conditions. The term binding condition refers to conditions that are mandatory (forced) for the system here. For instance, the total energy of a gas in a container that is perfectly insulated from the external environment is constant and therefore when we are investigating this gas, we should not overlook the conservation of total energy as a binding condition. Therefore, even for tiny actions, from the swing of a tree leaf with the wind to the flight of a dust particle in the air, the lowest energy consumption is essential in terms of present binding conditions.

We can make the topic easier to understand via short cut events of circuit boards. The reason behind a short cut is the conduction of electrical charges by the route with the least consumed energy. If even multiple short cuts are designed to attract electrical charges in an electrical circuitry, these charges are conducted via the route that requires the lowest energy.

It is all right, but how do electrical charges know this route? It is possible to ask a similar question about the orbit a ball follows when we throw it forward in a horizontal direction. The thrown ball continues on the orbit with the lowest amount of energy consumption depending on the present binding conditions (such as wind direction, strength, and the ball’s geometry). This is all well and good, but how does the ball know it will exert more energy on another trajectory?

Light follows the path where it moves fastest in the environment. In physics, “Fermat’s principle” states that when light is passing from one environment to another, it will be refracted not in the shortest path, but in the fastest direction of travel in the new environment (Figure 2). Therefore Fermat’s principle is the projection of the minimum energy principle on optics. In other words, the least amount of energy is spent by light on the path in which it will move fastest. However, for light to determine the direction that will be fastest, does it not have to first display refraction in all angles to identify the fastest path?

For science historian James Gleick it is impossible for physicists to discuss the minimum energy principle without giving the ball some type of willpower; the ball seems to choose its own orbit, as if it has knowledge of all the possibilities ahead of time.

A nice example in the living world for the minimum work principle is the similarity of ant behavior to the maximum economy principle. When some groups of the ant colony set out to forage, they communicate with pheromone hormones amongst each other. An ant that has found food leaves pheromones on the ground – indicating the quantity and quality of food – to guide others.

Another ant that follows this pheromone trace reaches the food, and marks the surface on the path back to nest with the pheromone by assessing the amount and quantity. Pheromones in spots that are not renewed by the ants within a certain time frame evaporate. Upon investigation of the ant routes, they are always found to follow the shortest path in between the food and nest, and leave pheromone tracks accordingly. For instance, when an asymmetric obstacle is positioned on the ant route (Figure 1), ants after a certain time are able to locate the shortest route again.

However, a more interesting case is the movement of the ant species named Wasmannia auropunctata when they are passing from one environment to another (Figure 3). It’s based on Fermat’s principle.

Not only ants, but also humans display trends that follow Fermat’s principle. For example, an emergency worker trying to rescue a drowning swimmer adheres to the most suitable strategy to reach the person at sea: When the beach and sea are considered as two different environments, first the rescuer runs to the nearest point to the swimmer on the beach, then reaches swimmer by entering the sea. Since humans move at different speeds on sand and at sea, if rescuer tried to reach the swimmer by entering directly into sea, it would take longer to reach the swimmer.

As seen in the above principle, the natural order of the world is created with incredible wisdom, without wasting any energy. Each truth has different projections on each existence and event. However, this distance in between the events or existences feels very far to us, therefore it is necessary to look more carefully to notice this relation among different projections.

There are also projections of this minimum work principle in our personal lives too. During the position of prostration in prayer, which can be considered as the humblest state of being when one feels closest to the Divine, the head, the highest point of body, is brought down to the level of the feet to compose a potentially lower energy status. This, in terms of the physical sciences, is the situation with the lowest work achievement capability, and can be seen as a status in which human deficiency and weakness as opposed to the infinite power of the Almighty are declared.

The minimal work principle can also be adopted in shaping the methods and style of providing services to other people, especially in the service of faith. Humans are the sons of their ages. Each age can be defined as a different environment. Therefore, when humans interpret their experiences, the socio-cultural environment where one is born and the specifics of their period must be considered. The shortest cut to people’s hearts and minds with minimal work principle is possible when the conditions of the time are taken into consideration. Said Nursi once said if he were to live in the time of Rumi (13th century), he would have written the Mathnawi, rather than his magnum opus the Risale-i Nur, and Rumi would do the same if he lived during his time. The Mathnawi eight centuries ago was and the Risale-i Nur today is the safest, shortest, and widest public avenue of faith and reflected the zeitgeist of their respective periods in history, Nursi argued.

References

1. James Gleick, Genius, Richard Feynman and Modern Physics, Abacus, London, 1993.
2. Jan Oettler, Volker S. Schmid, Niko Zankl, Olivier Rey, Andreas Dress, Jurgen Heinze, Fermat’s Principle of Least Time Predicts Refraction of Ant Trails at Substrate Borders, PLoS ONE 8(3): e59739. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059739

That morning, however, was unusual for one of the ants, Sayhon. He was intrigued by the noises coming from all directions. He had recorded and investigated the noise generated by bugs when carrying chips of wood, the sound a fly makes when landing on a dry leaf, the clamor of the creeks as they hit the rocks, and so on. But regardless of the cacophony of the sounds, Sayhon was always able to filter out a background noise that showed up consistently. It was as if something or someone was omnipresent in every occurrence, making itself heard. After realizing this, the poor ant found himself in seclusion to concentrate on this subtle message. After a while, not able to figure out the source of this constant noise, nor able to come up with an explanation about its meaning, Sayhon spiraled down into an endless depression. In hard times like these, he always took refuge in the warm friendship of Nurson.

Nurson also conducted his own research, modeling the dynamic geometry of the forest. By formulating the variations in the locations of the fruits on the ground or those on the branch, he benefited the worker ants in establishing the optimum routes for collection. Even more challenging was Nurson’s interest in predicting the time and place of the birth of a new fruit. It was so demanding, this prediction effort, that it shook his antennas wildly. During his research, Nurson had come to the conclusion that, existing or newborn, all the fruits were moving apart from each other. This effect was more evident in the observation of a fruit at large distances.

One day when it was raining, Sayhon was observing how the raindrops splashed on the water, how they created a blasting sound. At the same spot Nurson was studying the expansion of the waves in the puddles made by raindrops. After some gloomy moments, Sayhon wanted to open a conversation.

“Hey dude! Do you hear any noise generated by those waves?”

“YES!” replied Nurson hysterically.

Sayhon was not expecting this kind of a “YES” to his question. Rather, it sounded like an answer to something else. This, in fact, was the case, because Nurson had had an epiphany with Sayhon’s question: “The noise you are detecting everywhere is due to the expansion of the forest.”

Sayhon was startled by the answer he had received for his teasing. Nevertheless, he was eager to continue this conversation: “Hey! Easy now, easy.”

“Look! The noise you are detecting everywhere points to an entity or occurrence that is omnipresent. To date, we don’t know an entity everywhere, but we do know an occurrence that is everywhere: the moving apart phenomenon. So, the only thing that can create this noise you are so curious about is the expansion of the forest. Every fruit, every branch-tip in this forest is moving apart from each other, while leaving behind a signature in the form of sound. Now everything makes sense.”

Enlightenment suddenly seized them both with a shiver throughout their bodies. When they came back to their senses, they couldn’t help but smile; it didn’t take long before Sayhon and Nurson started squealing in joy.

Soon, the entire ant colony was in a tumult about the discovery of the expansion of the forest, but with some subsequent thoughts. For example, an ant suggested that the omnipresent noise must be propagating through some unseen but all-pervading substance; but the experiments to verify this suggestion failed. Another thought was about the size of the forest. Some claimed that it was not possible to know the size of the forest, while others said it was finite, since otherwise it would result in an infinitely intertwined forest. A third item in this list of hot discussions was the age of the forest. According to the expansion theory, if the forest is expanding now, and if you rewind this process long enough, you end up with a single tree, and eventually a single seed, out of which this endless forest has formed. They called this unimaginable start the “big germination.” Based on the big germination theory, some ants suggested billions of years of age for the forest; but some others claimed an age on the order of thousands based on interpretation of their ancient texts.

In the fresh vibrations of these findings, the discussions of the ants about the start of the forest eventually became a discussion of their own existence. What was the origin of life in the forest? How had the living beings come to their current states, each with an optimum design for the survival of their own species and for the well-being of the entire habitat? Were they merely fallen off a tree as a result of a coincidence?

As the founders of the big germination theory, Sayhon and Nurson were invited to speak in huge assemblies where thousands of curious ants were gathered. They had given several interviews, and participated in many events on the subject of the origin of life. The two friends had differing points of views on this matter, but their discussion was as respectful as it was rational.

Sayhon held the view that the living beings had come to existence through a chain of events that are not yet readily known to the ants, but can be discovered with advancements in science. As his initial hypothesis, he proposed a common ancestor to all kinds of animals in the forest, like the start of the forest from a single seed. He supported his theory of a common ancestor with the observations of common traits among different organisms. But eventually, he admitted that his hypothesis is only tentative, and needed further scrutiny. He was open to change his views with new findings and observations, and never suggested that his hypothesis be used as the criterion to judge the veracity of new perspectives.

Nurson, on the other side, claimed that the origin of life in the forest was by the hand of the Creator, just like He was the one who had created the forest in the scenario of the big germination. In the same context, he thought that the scientific studies must be aimed at learning how the Creator was making different kinds of animals in the forest. Nurson said that his view did not essentially differ from Sayhon’s views in terms of scientific foundations or implications, but he positioned himself against unscientific interpretations of scientific findings. For example, he requested that, as he admitted his belief in the Creator is an unscientific presumption, Sayhon must admit his claims about a common ancestor is unscientific, since there was no absolute proof to it. Nurson also expressed his resentment about the ants who inferred the absence of the Creator in the scientific texts as a rejection of Him, since such inference was clearly irrational as well. Overall, Nurson neither tried to alienate Sayhon nor curse his views, he merely requested that both parties characterize their views properly, which was wholeheartedly approved by Sayhon.

In return to the request of Nurson, Sayhon invited him to admit that they don’t have a complete understanding of how creation occurs, and that interpretation of implicit information in the ancient texts cannot be binding. Nurson humbly agreed.

Despite the friendly opposition between Sayhon and Nurson, the ant colony was severely divided into two groups: some siding with Sayhon and others agreeing with Nurson. Each group projected their own view as the ultimate truth, unlike the two friends’ admittance of the unscientific parts in their views. Although Sayhon and Nurson both admitted the tentative and immature level of science in the matter, the public preferred to embrace them as complete and unchangeable. Thus, these two groups socially expelled each other, and showed intellectual hostility. Rejecting the other’s views in their entirety, they mutually evolved into antagonists.

Strange enough, as the tension between these groups increased, the climate in the forest started to change dramatically. Rain became more abundant, yet the weather also warmed up incredibly. They had yet to discover the significance of these drastic changes, but this threat to the entire colony acted as a uniting agent among the ants, and mitigated the divisions on the origin of life.

In one of those hot days, the ants noticed large cracks forming in their nests, which eventually evolved into large channels, through which a violent stream came and flooded the forest. Many of the ants were saved by embarking on the leaves. Now everything was underwater, and would be until it soaked completely into the soil, which was unlikely to occur in their lifetimes. Facing extinction, the big germination and the subsequent expansion of the forest felt like meaningless topics in their hopeless state. Yet, the origin of life was of the highest attention. Even the most bigoted ants who denied the Creator wanted to believe in a higher Hand that could penetrate the doom they were facing and deliver them to salvation.

The flood did not return the ants back home but carried them to another one. By the time they arrived at this new forest, the flood had faded to a nice stream, and the ants could safely disembark from their leaves. But with nothing in their possession, everything had to be reconstructed: a home, a safe environment, and most importantly, the hope for restoration.

Sayhon and Nurson were among these survivors. Seeing that their home forest actually had an end had shocked them. In light of this fact, they had to reconsider all their thoughts from scratch. This was not to be done publicly, because the colony was struggling for survival. Amidst this new land of uncertainties, everyone was in need of a certainty to cling to, and the suppositions of Sayhon and Nurson were the last thing they looked for.

As the colony’s efforts for reconstruction and the internal quests of these two ants continued, they came across the most unexpected thing: another ant colony just like them. It was as shocking to the native ants as it was to themselves. And as their relationship deepened, it was a subtle, mind-altering experience for all of them to see that they both had religious texts telling the same brief story about the origin of life.

Ants and Ecosystem³

The abundance of ants on earth is legendary. They live almost everywhere except very cold places such as Antarctica and Greenland. A worker is less than one-millionth the size of a human being, yet ants taken collectively rival people as dominant organisms on the land. Lean against a tree almost anywhere and the first creature that crawls on you will probably be an ant. Stroll down a suburban sidewalk with your eyes fixed on the ground, counting the different kinds of animals you see. The ants will win hands down. The British entomologist⁴ C. B. Williams once calculated that the number of insects alive on earth at a given moment is one million trillion, 1018. If, to take a conservative figure, one percent of this host is ants, their total population is ten thousand trillion. Individual workers weigh on average between one to five milligrams, according to the species. When combined, all ants in the world taken together weigh about as much as all human beings. But being so finely divided into tiny individuals, this biomass⁵ saturates the terrestrial environment.⁶

Ants absolutely dominate in rainforests, which are the most biologically diverse ecosystems on earth. Rainforests are so diverse that in a single leguminous tree (a relative to beans and peas) in Peru, 43 species of ants belonging to 26 genera⁷ were found, about equal to the ant fauna⁸ of the British Isles. In a single square mile of tropical forest in Peru or Brazil, there may be 1,500 or more species of butterflies-twice the total number found in the United States and Canada combined.⁹ In Amazon rainforests ants and termites together compose nearly a third of the animal biomass. In other words, when all kinds of animals, large and small, from jaguars to monkeys down to roundworms and mites, are weighed, nearly a third of the weight consists of the flesh of ants and termites.

All of the ants, composing in formal taxonomic classification the family Formicidae of the order Hymenoptera, contain about 9,500 species known to science and at least twice that number of species remaining to be discovered, most of which are confined to the tropics. The total number of species of social insects is about 13,500 out of a grand total of 750,000 insect species that have been recognized to date by biologists. These numbers show that social insects seem to constitute 2 percent of all insects yet, in terms of biomass, social insects are half or more of all insects. Why are ants and other social insects so successful in the terrestrial environment? Their strength comes from their social organization.¹⁰ In addition to the question of why ants and other highly social insect species have been so successful, it is also important to understand how such a large collection of individuals maintains order and collectively accomplishes tasks without producing chaos. With potentially thousands of individual ants to coordinate, how do they make decisions regarding who does what and when, especially critical decisions regarding reproduction?¹¹ These questions become even more intriguing when you realize that ants have quite limited sensory devices to experience the world. They also have relatively simple nervous systems that process only a limited number of stimuli and are aware of only a few minutes to a few hours into the past.¹²

What is Collective Intelligence?¹³

Intelligence can be defined simply as the ability to solve problems. One system is more intelligent than another system if in a given time interval it can solve more problems, or find better solutions to the same problems. A group can then be said to exhibit collective intelligence if it can find more or better solutions than the whole of all solutions that would be found by its members working individually.

All organizations, whether they are firms, institutions or sporting teams, are created on the assumption that their members can do more together than they could do alone. Yet, most organizations have a hierarchical structure, with one individual at the top directing the activities of the other individuals at the levels below. Although no president, chief executive or general can oversee or control all the tasks performed by different individuals in a complex organization, one might still suspect that the intelligence of the organization is somehow merely a reflection or extension of the intelligence of its hierarchical head. This is no longer the case in small, closely interacting groups such as soccer or football teams, where the “captain” rarely gives orders to the other team members. The movements and tactics that emerge during a soccer match are not controlled by a single individual, but result from complex sequences of interactions. Still, they are simple enough for an individual to comprehend, and since soccer players are intrinsically intelligent individuals, it may appear that the team is not really more intelligent than its members.

With the growing interest in complex adaptive systems, artificial life, swarms, and simulated societies, the concept of “collective intelligence” is coming more and more to the fore. The basic idea is that a group of individuals (e.g. people, insects, robots etc.) can be smart in a way that none of its members is. Complex, apparently intelligent behavior may emerge from the synergy created by simple interactions between individuals that follow simple rules.

How do ants succeed?

Now we have lots of questions to ask about the success of ants as a group. How do they govern? Who is the ruler? How do they foresee the future? How do they elaborate plans and preserve equilibrium? These, indeed, are puzzling questions. Every single ant in a colony seems to have its own agenda, and yet an insect colony looks so organized. The seamless integration of all individual activities does not seem to require a supervisor. For example, leaf-cutter ants cut leaves from plants and trees to grow fungi. Workers forage for leaves hundreds of meters away from the nest, literally organizing highways to and from their foraging sites. Weaver ant workers form chains of their own bodies, allowing them to cross wide gaps and pull stiff leaf edges together to form a nest. Several chains can join to form a bigger one over which workers run back and forth. In their moving phase, army ants organize impressive hunting raids, involving up to 200,000 workers, during which they collect thousands of prey.¹⁴

A harvester ant colony performs many tasks: It must collect and distribute food, build a nest, and care for the eggs, larvae, and pupae. It lives in a changing world to which it must respond. When there is a windfall of food, more foragers are needed. When the nest is damaged, extra effort is required for quick repairs. Task allocation is the process that results in certain workers engaged in specific tasks, in numbers appropriate to the current situation. Task allocation is a solution to a dynamic problem and thus it is a process of continual adjustment. It operates without any central or hierarchical control to direct individual ants into particular tasks. Although “queen” is a term that reminds us of human political systems, the queen is not an authority figure. She lays eggs and is fed and cared for by the workers. She does not decide which worker does what. In a harvester ant colony, many feet of intricate tunnels and chambers and thousands of ants separate the queen, surrounded by interior workers, from the ants working outside the nest and using only the chambers near the surface. It would be physically impossible for the queen to direct every worker’s decision about which task to perform and when. Consider the commercially available ant farms being sold. Since it’s forbidden to transfer ant queens, in the US ant farms are sold with only worker ants. Still they work in harmony. They build their nest, they build bridges, they collect food and they defend their colony. They do all these things without a queen. The absence of central control may seem counterintuitive, because we are accustomed to hierarchically organized social groups in many aspects of human societies, including universities, businesses, governments, orchestras and armies. This mystery underlies the ancient and pervading fascination of social insect colonies.

No ant is able to assess the global needs of the colony, or to count how many workers are engaged in each task and decide how many should be allocated differently. The capacity of an individual is limited. It cannot make complicated assessments. It probably cannot remember anything for very long. Its behavior is based on what it perceives in its immediate environment. Each worker needs to make only fairly simple decisions. There is abundant evidence, throughout physics, the social sciences and biology that such simple behavior by individuals can lead to predictable patterns in the behavior of the group. It should be possible to explain task allocation in a similar way, as the consequence of simple decisions by individuals.

Though ant colonies must respond to changing conditions, the response does not have to be perfect. It is not like clockwork, or an army, each unit snapping into place so the whole system ticks on without a hitch. There must be enough ants to collect food, often enough for the colony to survive and grow. The appropriate range of numbers should be allocated over a set of similar occasions. If the colony did not get enough food today, perhaps it will tomorrow. The process results in more or less the right number of ants engaged in the appropriate task, often enough for the colony to carry on.

Maximizing the number of ants that perform each task may not always be best for the colony. A task allocation problem for a human city is how to get the right number of firefighters to the scene of a fire. It may be a waste to have too many firefighters on the city payroll. Too many ants allocated to each task may be expensive for a colony if the excess ants could be doing something more useful than waiting around when they are not needed.

The most difficult thing to grasp about task allocation is that it is not a deterministic process even at the individual level. An ant does not respond the same way every time to the same stimulus; nor do colonies. Some events influence the probabilities that certain ants will perform certain tasks, and this regularity leads to predictable tendencies rather than perfectly deterministic outcomes. The ant is jostled in a stream of events that send it sometimes into one task, sometimes another. Task allocation is not a system in which each ant awaits the crucial event that defines its status forever. Like a twig in a turbulent river, an ant may tend to go in one direction, but there are many places it could get washed ashore, to be picked up and then swept in another direction altogether.

Stories about totalitarian societies, inexorable armies, and voracious monsters are often told as stories about ants. But ants have no dictators, no generals and no evil masterminds. In fact, there are no leaders at all.

In short, the basic mystery about ant colonies is that there is no management. A functioning organization with no one in charge is so unlike the way humans operate as to be virtually inconceivable. There is no central control. No insect issues commands to another or instructs it to do things in a certain way. No individual is aware of what must be done to complete any colony task. Each ant scratches and prods its way through the tiny world of its immediate surroundings. Ants meet each other, separate, go about their business. Somehow these small events create a pattern that drives the coordinated behavior of colonies.¹⁵

Elements of Collective Intelligence¹⁶

More is different. This old slogan of complexity theory actually has two meanings that are relevant to our ant colonies. First, the statistical nature of ant interaction demands that there is a critical mass of ants for the colony to make intelligent assessments of its global state. Ten ants roaming across the desert floor will not be able to accurately judge the overall need for foragers or nest-builders, but two thousand will do the job admirably. Individual ants do not know that they are prioritizing pathways between different food sources when they lay down a pheromone¹⁷ gradient near a pile of nutritious seeds. In fact, if we only studied individual ants in isolation, we’d have no way of knowing that those chemical secretions were part of an overall effort to create a mass distribution line, carrying comparatively huge quantities of food back to the nest. It is only by observing the entire system at work that the global behavior becomes apparent.

Ignorance is usually useful for ants. The simplicity of the ant language-and the relative stupidity of the individual ants-is, as the computer programmers say, a feature but not a bug. Emergent systems can grow unwieldy when their component parts become excessively complicated. Better to build a densely interconnected system with simple elements, and let the more sophisticated behavior trickle up. That is why an ant does not respond to all stimuli around her, namely she ignores until she decides that the stimulus is strong enough to be responded to.

Encourage random encounters. Decentralized systems such as ant colonies rely heavily on the random interactions of ants exploring a given space without any predefined orders. Their encounters with other ants are individually arbitrary, but because there are so many individuals in the system, those encounters eventually allow individuals to gauge and alter the state of the colony itself. Without those haphazard encounters, the colony would not be capable of stumbling across new food sources or of adapting to new environmental conditions.

Look for patterns in the signs. While the ants do not need an extensive vocabulary and are capable of syntactical formulations, they do rely heavily on patterns in the semiochemicals they detect. A gradient in a pheromone trail leads them toward a food source, while encountering a high ratio of nest-builders to foragers encourages them to switch tasks. This knack for pattern detection allows meta-information to circulate through the colony mind: signs about signs. Smelling the pheromones of a single forager ant means little, but smelling the pheromones of fifty foragers imparts information about the global state of the colony.

Pay attention to your neighbors. This may well be the most important lesson that the ants have to give us, and the one with the most far-reaching consequences. You can restate it as “Local information can lead to global wisdom.” The primary mechanism of swarm logic is the interaction between neighboring ants in the field: ants stumbling across each other, or each other’s pheromone trails, while patrolling the area around the nest. Adding ants to the overall system will generate more interactions between neighbors and will consequently enable the colony to solve problems and regulate itself more effectively. Without neighboring ants stumbling across one another, colonies would be just a senseless assemblage of individual organisms-a swarm without logic.

Conclusion

Ants, first of all, have something to teach us about how nature works. Any system whose behavior arises from the interactions of its components has something in common with ant colonies. Using ants and other social insects as models, computer scientists have developed software agents that cooperate to solve complex problems, such as the rerouting of traffic in a busy telecom network or internet. Another example, the famous traveling salesman problem, in which a salesman tries to find the shortest and fastest route between many cities, is almost impossible to solve definitively. But with the methods inspired by ants the problem can be solved at least approximately, because ants are very good at finding the shortest path between the food and the nest collectively. Collective robotics borrowed from collective intelligence in ant colonies is being used to manage systems composed of lots of robots in synchronization.

Nature is a book to be read by the people who approach it to live in harmony, not to dominate. We are not the owners of the beautiful things around us, but observers searching for signs which reveal the wisdom behind them.

Footnotes

1. Haskins C.P., Of Ants and Men, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1939.
2. Huxley J., Ants, AMS Press, 1969.
3. An ecosystem is a grouping of plants, animals, and other organisms interacting with each other and with the environment in such a way as to perpetuate the grouping more or less indefinitely.
4. The scientific discipline in which ants are studied is called myrmecology and it is one of the branches of the study of insects, entomology.
5. Biomass is the total weight of all living organisms in a biological environment.
6. Holldobler B. and Wilson E.O., Journey to the Ants, Harvard University Press, 1994.
7. The word Genera is the plural of genus. Genus is a taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics.
8. Fauna (Flora) is the animals (plants) of a particular region or period, considered as a group.
9. http://www.savenature.org/images/pdfs/ecoandinsects.pdf
10. Holldobler and Wilson, ibid.
11. Bonabeau E., Dorigo M., and Theraulaz G., Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial System, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Oxford University Press, NY:1999.
12. Holldobler and Wilson, ibid.
13. Heylighen, F. “Collective Intelligence and its Implementation on the Web: Algorithms to Develop a Collective Mental Map,” Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory. 1999, Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 253-280.
14. Bonabeau et al, ibid.
15. Gordon D., Ants at Work, W. W. Norton. 1999.
16. Johnson S., Emergence Simon & Schuster. 2001.
17. The pheromone is the semiotic chemical ants use to communicate with each other and with other colonies. Every colony has its own odor. That is why ants can recognize their sisters from the same colony easily.

I am not a tailor, I do not make or sell clothes for a living, I am not in the textile business in any way. Even so, what had brought me to this exhibition was curiosity about such devices as stitches, stitching needles, scissors and the like. More precisely, I had come to see what I could find out about the history and development of such devices in relation to cutting and joining in surgical procedures, especially sutures. 

Every display in the great hall was presented by a team of experts who were there to answer questions. I asked many. In the end, rather to my surprise, I met one expert who was able to give me the kind of help I was looking for. He was Paul Breuer from Aachen, representing the German company SNF MANF, who, as it happens, manufacture surgical needles. Paul Breuer astonished me with his knowledge of a wide range of methods for sewing skin, including the use of ants. Naturally, I was intrigued, and Paul promised to post to me a photograph of an ant being used as a skin stitch, after his return to Aachen.

An embroidery equipment specialist, Caroline Sayers, of the company DATA STITCH, said she could design an ant stitch, if I could supply her with a suitable photograph. The very next day after I had supplied the photograph, the ant was scanned, digitized and an embroidery machine executed for us the amazing ant stitch.

My curiosity about this unusual suture technique led me to further investigations which finally bore fruit when I came across Welcome Institute for the History of Medicine’s 1973 publication, Albucasis on surgery and instruments. This book is a definitive edition of the original Arabic text with English translation and commentary by MS. Spink and G.L. Lewis.

In Book 2, Chapter 85, on suture materials used by the Arab surgeons, Albucasis (the Latinized version of Abu l-Qasim) mentions two techniques. Spink and Lewis, 1973, p.538, comment:

1. Ants’ nippers. This is not a classical method; but is said to be used by African tribes as a way of bringing skin edges together (modern Michel clips); evidently the Arabian ant-nippers acted in the same way.

2. Gut sutures. Gut was used by the earliest Greeks for bow-strings; but it is not mentioned as used for surgical purposes until the Arab era of surgery. Albucasis then describes it as ‘rubbed-down gut, well cleansed’. This may be the earliest reference to this now universal suture material.

Abu l-Qasim’s own account (ibid., p.550) is a vivid description of sutures using ants and cat gut:

Some men of experience have said that when a wound occurs in the intestine and it is small, it should be sutured in this manner, namely: ants with large heads are taken; then the edges of the wound are brought together and one of these ants is applied by its jaws then the head is cut off, and it will stick and will not loosen. Then another ant is applied near the first; and you proceed after this manner with a number of ants according to the size of the wound. Then reduce the intestine and sew up the wound; for the heads will remain sticking to the intestine until it is healed up; and no harm will come to the patient.

The intestine may be sewn up with fine suture which is extracted from an animals gut and sticks to it after being threaded in a needle. The method is that the end is taken of this suture made of gut, well scraped; and to this end is fixed a linen thread, twisted, and then that thread is passed through the needle affixed to the suture of animalis gut, with which the intestine is sewn and then replaced in the abdominal cavity (Abu l-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Al-Tasrif, Book 2 Chapter 85).

Abu l-Qasim Al-Zahrawi (936-1013) wrote his remarkable surgery manual Al-Tasrif during the period of Arab/Islamic rule in Spain about a thousand years ago. I felt a curious and wonderful sensation at the link between an ant stitch, mentioned and talked about in an exhibition of textile craftsmanship in Manchester near the end of the twentieth century, and the dedication and craftsmanly skills of the Muslim scholar who, a millenium before, had adapted the use of ants, and invented the use of cat gut, for making sutures. This was not the only contribution this extraordinary man made to the development of modern surgery techniques, nor was he the only Muslim to have made significant and striking advances in the field of medicine.

It is hard not to feel awe (and, naturally, some pride) at the achievement of the Muslims in that great period of Islamic civilization. I have no doubt that their success was owed to the excellence of their faith and their consequent commitment to working for the improvement of human well-being and the advancement of learning. And I realize that I am merely at the beginning of a long quest for information about what was achieved by Muslims dedicated to Islam in the broadest sense-namely, a way that improves the quality of human life and the quality of our understanding of the world we live in.

Ants are highly social insects and have a complex system of internal communication. It is only by this system that the colonies manage to carry out their collaborative activities like nest- construction, food-gathering, brood-rearing, and defense of the colony. The fact that ants allow some alien species full access to the benefits of their society suggests that the guests must somehow have, in the words of Hölldobler, ‘broken the ant’s code, that is, attained the ability to ‘speak’ the ants’ language, which involves a diversity of visual, mechanical and chemical cues. ’

To support this suggestion, Hölldobler focused mainly on the rove beetle and looked into its communications and relations with certain species of ants. The relations vary considerably with the beetle species. Some live along the ants’ food gathering trail, some at the garbage dump, some in the chambers within the nest and others inside the brood chamber itself.

Atemeles pubicollis, a European species of beetle, is a well-known example of the species that live inside the brood chamber. It lives in the nest of the mound-making wood ant Formica polyetena during its larval stage. Hölldobler found that the ants’ adoption of the beetle larva depends on chemical communication. The larva secretes a substance that apparently acts as an attractant for the ant. The brood-keeping ants respond to the chemical signal with intense grooming of the larvae.

A different kind of communication takes place to elicit the ant’s feeding of the larvae. Hölldobler observed that the beetle larvae imitate certain begging behaviour of ant larvae involving mechanical stimulation of the brood- keeping adults. When the adult ant touches the beetle larva with its mouth or antenna, the larva rears up immediately and tries to make contact with the ant’s head. If the larva succeeds in tapping the ant’s lip with its own mouth, the ant regurgitates a droplet of food. The beetle larvae receive more food than the ant larvae since they perform the begging behaviour more intensely than the ant larvae do.

How does the ant colony manage to survive the beetle larvae’s competition for food? The answer is a simple:The beetle larvae are cannibalistic and unable to distinguish their fellow larvae from ant larvae by odour. Thus, they reduce their own population. That is why we find the ant larvae in clusters while the beetle larvae, having devoured their neighbours, are loners in the brood chamber.

The Atemeles beetles have two different homes with ants; one for the summer and one for winter. In the autumn, the beetles migrate to nests of the dark brown insect eating ants of the genus Myrmica. The reason for their migration is that brood-keeping and the food supply are maintained in Myrmica throughout the winter, whereas Formica ants suspend their raising of young. In the spring the beetles return to Formica nests for mating and the laying of eggs. The Lomechusa beetle are also co-dwellers with Formica ants. However, they do not change their environment for the winter. Instead, after hatching they simply move on to another Formica colony of the same species and share their food supply.

How the migrating beetle find its way to a Myrmica nest is another question. We find Formica nests normally in woodlands, whereas Myrmica are found in the grasslands beyond the woods. Hölldobler suggests that when the beetles leave the Formica nest, they generally move in the direction of increasing light. This may explain how the beetles manage to reach the relatively open grasslands where the Myrmica ants Jive. When they reach open grasslands they use the odour of the host species of ant to find a nest.

The beetle obtains recognition and adoption with a ritual, involving chemical communication, when it finds a Myrimica nest. The beetle first touches the ant lightly with its antenna and raises the tips of lts abdomen towards the host. The ant responds by secretions from glands on the tip of the abdomen. Next the ant is attracted to a series of glands along the sides of the beetle’s abdomen. Hölldobler calls these ‘the adoption glands’ because the ant will not welcome or adopt the beetle unless it senses their secretion. Most probably, the odour of this secretion mimics the odour of the ant can approach, and grasp it in order to carry it into the brood chamber.

The Atemeles care not the only species capable of making themselves at home with more than one kind of ant. Xenodusa beetles also change their nests with the seasons. The larvae live in Formica nests through the summer and live in the carpenter (Campotonus) ant nests in winter time. It is interesting that the carpenter ants also maintain larvae throughout the winter. Except for above mentioned beetles do not have the command of the ant language required to gain acceptance to the brood chamber. Some species of European beetles like Dinarda are limited to peripheral chambers of the nest of their host. Dinarda offers secretions from glands similar to Atemeles’ glands, but these secretions only induce the ant to tolerate the beetle, not to adopt it and take it into the brood chamber. Therefore Dinarda can only live on such food as it can find in the peripheral chambers. Other groups of beetles have communication sufficient only to allow the beetle to feed at the ants’ garbage dumps.

Many beetles closely resemble their ant hosts in appearance. This is particularly true of guests of the army ants. Some scientists concluded that the factor inducing the ants to accept the beetles as nest-mates was the beetles’ morphological resemblance to themselves. It was even thought to be case with Atemeles, although they do not particularly resemble their hosts. Hölldobler altered the shape ond the collar of these beetles artificially and found that morphological features do not contribute to the success of their relationship with their host. Instead it appears that communicative behaviour remains the essential requirement for acceptance. The guests’ mimicry of their hosts’ appearance, probably serves as a protection against predation by birds.

There are some questions still to be answered about ants and their hosts: How did the fascinating, effective system of communication between the beetles and their hosts develop?Why do only some species of beetles have this ability while the rest do not?

REFERENCES 

• ATKINS, M. D. (1980) Introduction la Insect Behaviour, Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. , New York, pp. 100-2.
• HÖLLDOBLER, B. (1971) ‘Communication between Ants and their Hosts’, Scientific American, January, pp. 86-93.
• WIGGLESWORTH, V B. (1964) The Life of lnsects, The New American Library, New York