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)

It is not difficult to predict the possibility of a future earthquake, which can be done by measuring the stress and plasticity of rocks or monitoring micromovements in faults. In countries located between active tectonic continental plates, an earthquake might strike at any moment – yet it is impossible to say when and where. Although it is possible to measure stress, pressure, and vibrations using devices like seismographs, it is not possible to predict which plate will break when and with what force. We may not know when it will strike, but still we can be prepared for it and minimize the destruction. Erecting high-rise buildings on a ground which is not solid enough and with insufficient construction techniques is certainly not a good preparation for earthquakes.

Although humans cannot predict earthquakes in advance, there has been an increase in the number of laboratory studies into animals predicting earthquakes. This isn’t a new phenomenon: former generations are known to have made extensive observations about the matter, yet none were presented as scientific evidence that could withstand scrutiny. Evaluated objectively, these conclusions are not completely irrelevant or groundless; however, they never confidently predict the time, place, and force of an earthquake.

Numerous sources include observations about strange pre-earthquake behavior of many domestic animals such as dogs, cats, cattle, chickens, and rabbits, as well as non-domesticated animals like insects, birds, and various sea creatures. But such behavior could well stem from other factors such as hunger, inter-group competition, and other adverse conditions.

Ants and snakes

Ants and snakes deserve special emphasis thanks to their anatomical and physiological features. Although both species are somewhat deaf to the sounds coming from the air, evidence suggests that they might be able to detect sounds, electromagnetic radiation, and gas emissions coming from the depths of the Earth. In a remarkable story in the Qur’an (chapter al-Naml), an ant detects Solomon’s approaching armies and warn other ants not to be crushed. One may think here of an allusion to the ant’s skill to detect the vibrations generated by the clopping of the horses.

Monitoring ant behavior closely could help with earthquake preparations. If there is a significant increase in the number of ants at one location; if they have left their nests and move differently; or if there is an increase in the number of dead ants for no obvious reason, then an earthquake might be imminent.

A body like an electronic communication center

Despite its tiny body, the ant has a variety of sensory organs. It’s almost as if it were a fully-equipped center for picking up and evaluating pulses. The ant has three small eyes on its head that enable it to detect the intensity and polarization of light, as well as compound eyes on the sides of its head, each with multiple lenses providing 180 degrees of vision. The pair of antennae on its head, filled with receptors for taste, smell, and humidity, make it possible to detect all types of chemicals in the environment and are more important than the ant’s eyes. Some types of ants are almost blind and rely completely on their antennae.

Desert ants have about one thousand lenses in their eyes, while we humans have one in each eye. Rüdiger Wehner and his colleagues at the University of Zurich discovered that each ant eye has 80 lenses specialized in detecting polarized light across the ultraviolet range of the spectrum. Each lens focuses on a different point in the sky. One lens, for example, receives light from 180 degrees, another from 270 degrees, and so on. Even if they cannot see the sun, they can locate it thanks to the specialized cells in their eyes. This enables them to find the right compass direction and to determine the distance they have covered.

Sensory hairs

Especially mind-boggling about ants is the keenness of the special sensory hairs in various regions of their exoskeleton (Figure 1). The hairs on the antennae and the underside of the legs are particularly sensitive. Each hair is attached to the exoskeleton through a delicate joint and moves with the slightest vibration. The sensory cell under the hair is connected to a nerve fiber, and even a slight vibration of the hair causes a chemical exchange signal by which the ant “feels.” Some of these hairs respond to sound waves. These hairs group in certain regions (Figure 2). Considering the complex sensory organs on their head, the fact that they can perceive more than a million chemical and light signals, that the sensory hairs under their mouth and on their legs can send signals, and that they have a brain with as much as 500,000 nerve cells, it seems reasonable to assume that ants can detect an earthquake before it strikes.

A group of scientists from the University of Duisburg-Essen led by Gabriela Berberich studied more than 15,000 red wood ant mounds that lay along some of Germany’s biggest and most active earthquake fault lines, between 2009 and 2012. They monitored the insects’ movements with video cameras, entered the movements into a special software, and kept track of any deviation from the ants’ normal behavior patterns. The ants typically scooted around actively all day and went back to their mounds to rest at night. Yet, right before an earthquake they did not enter their mounds but loitered outside throughout the night. Once the earthquake was over, the ants would relax and go back to their regular routine. Even more interesting was that they did not change their behavior for tiny tremors below 2.0.

To Berberich, red wood ants (Formica pratensis and F. polyctena) can detect shifts in gas emissions with the chemoreceptors in their antennae and shifts in the Earth’s magnetic field with the magnetoreceptors in some of their sensory hairs. It is also possible that ants possess sensory organs that can respond to short-lived thermal anomalies or radioactivity.

Haicheng earthquake

Animal responses to earthquakes has been a topic of interest in China. It has led to survey and research studies. A network of experimental stations has been set up in areas with high seismic activity in order to evaluate extraordinary phenomena and other abnormal behaviors. The majority of the Chinese population lives in agricultural areas, so their proximity to animals makes them close observers. They have reported a great number of abnormal incidences preceding earthquakes, especially in the last 24 hours before a quake. It was found that the irregular behaviors of rats, fish, and snakes started three days before big earthquakes and continued until a few hours or even minutes beforehand.

Snakes came out of hibernation for two months in December 1974 and January 1975. It was as if they were committing suicide. Rats emerged from their dens and started to loiter in groups. These were both unexpected behaviors. The experts who evaluated the situation stated that a big earthquake was imminent.

There was first a series of small tremors. Snakes continued emerging from under the snow; bigger creatures such as cattle, horses, pigs, and dogs displayed restlessness. Thousands of such abnormal animal behavior were reported in the following month. Finally, on February 4, 1975, an earthquake of magnitude 7.3 struck the Haicheng County of Liaoning Province in northeast China. Far fewer people perished because they were warned of the quake thanks to the extensive observations of animals. Officials ordered the evacuation of one million residents of Haicheng a day before the earthquake, so there were only about 2,000 casualties. If the county had not been evacuated, fatalities and injuries would have been expected to exceed 150,000. The Haicheng earthquake is believed to be the only big earthquake that has ever been successfully predicted.

Geophysicist Friedmann Freund from NASA states that rocks under extreme tectonic stresses release electrically charged particles into the atmosphere before an earthquake. The particles react with air or water when they reach the Earth’s surface; they cause the formation of new molecules, like hydrogen peroxide, when they react with water. This chemical chain of events is believed to affect the organic material dissolved in the pond water, turning it into toxic substances for many aquatic animals.

Although there are supporting observations about the abnormal behavior of eels and toads, the findings are inconclusive. Still, there are considerable records of abnormal toad and snake behavior before earthquakes.

Snakes can perceive tremors and infrared radiation, which might help them detect possible weak shock waves or shifts in electromagnetic fields in a region before a powerful earthquake. Because rocks under stress emit infrared radiation – the anomalies of which were recorded by the NASA Terra satellite before a magnitude 7.9 earthquake that hit Bhuj, India, on January 21, 2001 – it is believed that snakes – nighttime hunters that possess a thermal camera for scanning the body temperature of their prey – can detect the infrared radiation that builds up before an earthquake. This infrared thermal “camera” is located inside a cavity between a snake’s nose and eyes.

It was once believed that snakes were unable to hear because they did not respond to loud noises. Snakes do not have external ears, and there is only one bone in their middle ear (columella aurii). However, they should be able to sense incoming vibrations, as they have inner ears. Indeed, a study at Princeton showed that snakes have a very keen sense of hearing. Voltmeter measurements of neural activity indicated that the vibrations from the air reached the inner ear through the jaw bone and had an effect on the brain. It seemed that the sense of hearing in snakes was tuned to the sounds and vibrations made by larger animals.

Studies have shown that snakes can detect sound by using sound pressure and sound-based mechanical vibrations. Experiments that measured the electrical responses of snakes’ head neurons and brain stems found that snakes can hear sounds of very high frequency. Snakes were found to hear sounds 10,000 times lower than is possible for human ears to hear. But how were the sounds transmitted to the inner ear of the snake, which was sensitive to vibrations? As low frequency sounds can be carried through solid substances, the research team wondered whether sound vibrations were transmitted from the ground to the snake’s body.

Subsequent research showed that skull vibrations had the same intensity as the minimum mechanical vibrations snakes could perceive. They directly responded to the vibrations that came from the air to the skeleton, rather than to sound pressure. A snake cannot possibly hear sounds from the air, but they can perceive the sound in a way that is unfamiliar to us. Snakes do not just hear what we perceive to be a sound: their entire body acts like a single organ designed for receiving vibrations, and their brains can perceive these vibrations as if they were sounds. It’s likely that the ribs and spines, covered with keratin scales, play a role in this transmission.

As research develops, we will be able to better understand what other creatures are equipped with troves of wisdom. It could open new windows into our world, allowing us to build safer cities and to appreciate the incredible intelligence of animals we consider to be “simple.”

In their observations, scientists noticed that ants do not follow the same long, meandering track they walked in search of food, but walk directly back to their nest. Given that ants do not have cell phones with navigation apps, how can an ant know the shortest way back to its nest?

It is known that red forest ants leave chemical signs which serve as landmarks for them. These ants find their way home by leaving behind smells or visible signs as reminders of where they passed. In a desert, however, this sort of marking is nearly impossible. The structure of desert sands, and other circumstances, do not allow such chemical marks to survive. If such marks were left in the desert, the situation would resemble that of Hansel and Gretel, who saw that the breadcrumbs they had left behind were nowhere to be found.

Accordingly, desert ants must be equipped with some other cognitive mechanism to help them get home. Black desert ants (Cataglyphis fortis) leave their nests and cross sands whose temperature reach 70 degrees Celsius. They can only remain on the hot sands and under the scorching sun for up to an hour. In short, they have to find their food within an hour and return to their nest – all without getting lost. If things go even a little wrong, it will cost their lives.

Scientists conducted research on a colony of ants in the hot deserts of Tunisia. The first thing the researchers did was study the nest in the early hours of the morning, before the heat strikes, and marked the area in squares. This would enable them to observe and mark the movements of the ants.

They started observing the ants. One ant came out of the nest in the morning. After some time, it found the bait placed by the researchers. But then the ant met a surprise: it was detained for a time by the researchers. The ant was eventually released in a different spot. Had it used a system of leaving clues, it would first try to find the location where it was caught. The ant, however, directly headed for the nest. The ant determined its own location with respect to the nest and headed back immediately.

Desert ants cover great distances in search of food, and yet they always manage to find their way home. How do such small creatures accomplish such a difficult feat?

The researchers repeated this experiment with many ants and observed the same result. As soon as it was left on the ground, the ant began moving toward the nest. By means of certain neurons coded in its nervous system, it immediately located the nest, even from a new position.

Moreover, only 10% of the ants missed the nest from a distance of 500 meters – and they only did so by 2 degrees. More interestingly, the ants took the possibility of error into consideration. If the exact location was not found, the ant reached its nest by moving back and forth in parallel lines.

The researchers concluded that while the human eye has one lens element, the eye of the desert ant has a thousand. Scientists discovered that in each eye of an ant, there are 80 lenses which can perceive polarized light coming from different spots in the sky. Polarized light forms when sunlight entering the atmosphere hits air molecules and other particles and is thus dispersed in every direction. This dispersion causes polarization, and light vibrating across many planes begins to vibrate on a single plane. Thus, an explicit polarization results, the strongest of which always makes a 90-degree angle to the sun. The lens system in the eye of the desert ant allowed it to map the sky by taking advantage of this polarization. When the ant stopped, it moved its head to locate the polarization. Thus, it discerned the direction for returning home. It kept repeating the movement along the way. If it failed to find the nest, it employed a series of patterned circular moves and usually got home. Each ant knew, at every step of the journey, how far it was from the nest and in which direction the nest was. (Incidentally, let us add that the ant did not know at what time or location it would be able to find food.)

In order to test this hypothesis, a number of mirrors were positioned over the ants, so that they would perceive the sun to be elsewhere in the sky. It was observed that the ants changed their direction in accordance with the new position of the sun.

This created a new problem: the sun moves in the sky throughout the day. To examine this problem, the researchers trapped the ants by placing a box over them immediately after they found the bait. The ants waited under the box a few hours, during which they could not see the sun and its movements. It was expected that the ants would have difficulty finding their way home when the box was removed. If they proceeded merely by considering the sun, they would make a systematic error and walk in the wrong direction.

Yet, in this experiment the ants also returned home successfully. They were able to find the optimum solution on the way back. In this case, researchers understood that desert ants do consider the factor of time and are aware of its passing – even if they do not see the sun.

Ants benefit from the sun’s movement in the sky to calibrate the inner clock with which they are created. But how did they know how much distance they were supposed to cover? Mathematically, even if they had the opportunity to make out the angle and direction, how were they able to calculate the distance?

Researchers developed three hypotheses. The first was the hypothesis of energy. Accordingly, ants calculated the energy they spent reaching their food and thus they knew how much energy they needed for the return; they then covered the distance that much energy allowed. Coming to the end of their energy marked the end of their journey.

In order to test this hypothesis, researchers put an extra load on the ant after it reached the food. They thought that since their body weight had increased, they would spend more energy and thus fail to reach their nest. The extra load did not impact the ants: they still took the shortest way home.

The second hypothesis was the “optical-flow” hypothesis. Researchers deemed it possible that the ants had “visual memory”; if they saw somewhere similar to their nest, they would mistake it for their home. For this experiment, the researchers blindfolded the ants that reached the food. They would not benefit from any visual memory on their way back to the nest.

Yet, the ants still reached the nest.

The researchers extended this second experiment by placing a wide TV screen in front of the ants. The motive was to generate a simulation as if the ants have crossed an immense desert. They did even change the time settings of the simulation, and yet, the ants still found their way home.

The last thing researchers tried was the step-counting hypothesis. The ant needed some measurement to know where it was going. Counting its steps could provide that measurement.

When certain ants reached their food, tiny legs made from hair were stuck to their legs, making them longer. This made the ants take longer steps. A separate group of ants had their legs shortened.

Researchers observed both categories of experimental ants to see how they returned home. Those with short legs thought they had arrived home before reaching the nest and those with long legs walked farther than the nest. So it turned out that ants counted their steps and thus knew the distance they had covered.

As for another group of ants in a control group, they were released from the nest, some with shortened and some with extended legs. All of them successfully returned to the nest with their food.  

The research showed that ants are equipped with an internal system allowing them to calculate the steps they take and make the relevant adjustments for returning home. People make these calculations with tools and by knowing the rules of trigonometry. These tiny creatures, however, have been given all they need to solve a complex problem. They do not use their perception or any other method; they just remember the direction of and distance to home.

When ruminating over the fascinating qualities of such creatures, one seeks a satisfactory truth, which may still be plain and simple, but makes better sense of this splendid universe.

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.

Termites, one of the most common insects in the ecosystem, have very interesting specifications and social behaviors. These insects are of interest due to their ability to digest cellulose and to recycle organic foods found in rotten leaves, dead wood or wood chips. Although they are considered by some to be harmful to the economy-in the USA alone 600 million dollars every year-because they eat wood, in truth they bring about more benefit than harm. As a result of the activities of these insects, our forests are able to respire and regenerate. Termites break down old, decayed, and fallen trees, digesting them and thus helping nature to renew with a continuous circulation of vital substances. Despite the depth of information that is known about the ecological and economical importance of termites, only a little is known about their biological structure and behavior. Two characteristic features of these insects are that they live in social colonies and that they are very susceptible to infections, as they build their nests in soil or rotten wood. Since their environment is covered with damp and warm earth, they are also surrounded by an abundance of bacteria.

How termites arrange their social lives and how they protect themselves against illness are two main subjects being investigated by biological scientists. When termites encounter fatal fungal infections, the termites that first become aware of the disease start to send warning signals to the other members of the colony. Even at the cost of their lives, these members will continue to send warning signals. That is, for the health and prosperity of the whole society, some individuals of the group will sacrifice their own lives. One of these signals consists of the contractions and vibrations sent by the termite that caught the disease. One type of termite that makes its nest in wood starts to eat and destroy its nest when it catches an infection. The vibrations and sound of this activity are received by the other members of the colony, and they quickly realize that they are faced with an emergency situation. They then spring into action to move their nest to a more secure place. These communication experts exhibit different movements and behavior in order to inform others of different kinds of dangers. They use different methods to warn others about the existence of an intruder, or a hole in the nest, or a disease they have caught. Consequently, the vibrations and oscillations caused by the movements of the termites constitute a kind of Morse code for termites. In other words, termites talk to each other through these oscillations and vibrations, which to us appear as no more than a strange puzzle for us.

J. Traniello from Boston University investigated the communication systems termites use to inform each other about disease-making microorganisms as his research subject (Mechanisms of Disease Response in Termites) . He made a rectangular shaped Perspex (clear acrylic) nest which he has divided into two sections. The material used for the divisions allowed the termites to pass from side to side. Moreover, some tubes were also placed around the nest so that the termites could leave the nest. He placed termites in both of the sections. After an adaptation period, one part of the nest was infected by spores of a fatal fungus called Metahizium anisopliae, with the change in the behavior of the insects being observed and recorded. Termites that sensed the infected parts of the section started to move their bodies up and down and back and forth, as if they were breathing deeply and continued to depict seismic waves like oscillations and vibrations. Termites in the clean part of the nest felt these vibrations and within an hour had completely abandoned the nest. An interesting observation in the experiment was that the termites in the infected part stayed in the nest and continued to vibrate. In order to determine that the termites left the nest only after receiving the vibrations sent by the termites that had detected the infection, sound absorbent foams were placed between the sections, and the same experiment was carried out three times more. In the experiments conducted with the absorbent foam, despite the existence of the disease, the termites in the uninfected sections did not leave the nest. This proves that termites were receiving the vibrations from the infected termites and were replying to them by immediately deserting the nest.

It was thought that the termites in the infected area would also leave the nest after sending messages to the termites in the other section. This hypothesis, however, proved to be false. They stayed where they were and continued sending warning signals until they died. This was another example of the sacrifice observed in social insects that give up their own lives for the continuation of their society. The termite perceives the existence of a fatal bacteria attack and immediately starts to send warning signals; and by not abandoning their nest, they successfully put into effect a quarantine system. These social insects, without any intelligence, apply the quarantine system in such a precise manner that the disease is completely prevented from spreading. What is more, by sacrificing themselves for their society, they show that the principle of “if a person’s endeavor is for his nation, that person becomes a miniature nation on his own” is not only valid for human beings.

Ants, using a different method than termites, synthesize bacteria eliminating chemicals in their saliva glands that protect them from infectious diseases. These chemical combinations are very effective against bacteria and fungi. Ants protect themselves by covering their bodies with these substances at certain intervals. Termites, although in appearance not very different from ants, do not produce antiseptic substances in their bodies. Termites use a different strategy by establishing a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria that live in their intestines. Some termites that feed on decayed wood need enzymes to digest the cellulose. The cellulose needed by termites is synthesized by the bacteria in their intestines and turned into sugar. Thus, termites receive the glucose they need for survival and bacteria are provided with a comfortable berth in the bodies of the termites. Because of this symbiotic relationship, the production of fatal antibiotics that would kill the bacteria would be harmful to the termites themselves.

Instead of producing chemical compounds or antibiotics like ants, the seismic movements and self-sacrificing behavior depicted by the termites has given scientists the idea that it may be possible to benefit from termites as an early warning system for earthquakes. This idea is reflected in the Holy Qur’an, chapter Naml (The Ant), verse 18:

Until, when they reached a valley of ants, one of the ants said: “O you ants! Get into your dwellings lest Solomon and his army crush you unawares.”

This verse shows us the sensitivity of ants to vibrations. They have organs in their feet that are sensitive to movement. For one of those ants to have been able to warn the other ants, it must either have seen or sensed the coming of Prophet Solomon’s army. As obviously an ant cannot see an army coming from a long distance, they must have felt the vibrations made by the feet of the soldiers. We know that sound waves move very fast and are strong in solid objects. Because of this, by placing an ear onto railway track one can hear the vibrations of a train from far away. Termites most likely have an organ that receives vibrations that is similar to that of ants, because if a species can produce a signal (e.g. light, sound, or vibrations) for communication, they must also have an organ that is capable of receiving this signal. Since termites communicate with vibrations, they must also have an organ that is sensitive to weak vibrations. From this respect, if the code that is based upon some of the behaviors and vibrations used by the termites can be decoded, then are techniques of predicting earthquakes can be considerably improved.

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