[HN Gopher] Scientists discover "cleaner ants" that groom giant ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Scientists discover "cleaner ants" that groom giant ants in Arizona
       desert
        
       Author : t-3
       Score  : 65 points
       Date   : 2026-04-15 19:46 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sciencedaily.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencedaily.com)
        
       | LeCompteSftware wrote:
       | This is very cool, and quite surprising. Cleaner fish are thought
       | to be among the most intelligent fish because of the complexity
       | and danger of their feeding strategy: it takes careful planning
       | and quick thinking. But they aren't tied to any particular
       | species of host or general tactic; naively I imagine cleaner fish
       | are more versatile and adaptable than cone ants.
       | 
       | It would be interesting to learn if this occurs with other
       | species of ants. I suppose until now nobody thought to look.
        
         | lisper wrote:
         | Cooperation and symbiosis are very general survival strategies.
         | They apear at all levels of the biological abstraction
         | hierarchy, all the way down to mitochondria, which are almost
         | certainly descended from what was once an independent organism.
         | In fact, even a genome itself can be seen as a collection of
         | mutually cooperating replicators. No intelligence is required
         | for cooperation to evolve. It's a straightforward consequence
         | of game theory.
        
           | fsckboy wrote:
           | mmmm it's equally likely that mitochondria's precursors were
           | self interested parasites or predators, whose negative
           | effects were competitively neutralized by defensive host
           | adaptations that exploititively colonialized them. No
           | intelligence or cooperation is required for co-opt-ation to
           | evolve. It's a straightforward consequence of game theory.
        
             | lisper wrote:
             | > it's equally likely that mitochondria's precursors were
             | self interested parasites or predators
             | 
             | That is in no way at odds with what I said.
        
           | LeCompteSftware wrote:
           | This is a frustrating response to my comment. I am aware that
           | symbiosis is universal. That's not what I'm talking about. I
           | am talking about the specific and highly unusual behavior of
           | crawling inside of a much larger animal's mouth and trusting
           | it not to eat you. Cleaner fish are highly intelligent[1] and
           | it appears that this intelligence is necessary for their
           | niche:
           | 
           | - picking a good location for a cleaning station requires
           | long-term planning and real strategic judgment;
           | 
           | - deciding which hosts to accept is a complex skill requiring
           | some sort of rudimentary theory of mind + long-term
           | development of social ties;
           | 
           | - like crows, cleaner fish are jerks who constantly try to
           | screw each other over, so there is something of a cognition
           | arms race.
           | 
           | I will add that the wrasse family of cleaner fish use rocks
           | to smash open shellfish (i.e. they are tool-users), and they
           | have very complex group strategies for raising their young.
           | In fact I'm not convinced that wrasse evolved to be cleaner
           | fish at all: they are natural scavengers and scum-suckers,
           | perhaps cleaning stations are a form of cultural technology.
           | 
           | I would be extremely surprised if any of this was true for
           | cone ants. I suspect that is more hard-wired, perhaps a local
           | subspecies stumbled into a genetic fluke, and as you say due
           | to game theory it is a local optimum this population has
           | settled on. If this behavior were common like it is in
           | vertebrates, we probably would have seen it earlier. But who
           | knows? 20 years ago I would have thought "fish have a form of
           | culture" is too ridiculous an idea to consider.
           | 
           | [1] Seriously: https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.ph
           | p/cusj/blog/vi...
           | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25837-0
        
             | lisper wrote:
             | > I am talking about the specific and highly unusual
             | behavior of crawling inside of a much larger animal's mouth
             | and trusting it not to eat you.
             | 
             | OK.
             | 
             | > Cleaner fish are highly intelligent[1]
             | 
             | Yes.
             | 
             | > and it appears that this intelligence is necessary
             | 
             | Manifestly not, at least not in general.
             | 
             | > for their niche:
             | 
             | That is an open question. Just because an unintelligent
             | cleaner fish hasn't evolved doesn't mean it couldn't.
        
           | culi wrote:
           | Yes! Cooperation seems to be just as fundamental, if not
           | more, than competition. We wouldn't have gotten volcanic
           | islands to break down into soil if it weren't for the
           | partnership that is lichen. We wouldn't be able to digest a
           | tenth of what we're able to eat if it weren't for our gut
           | bacteria. We wouldn't have trees if it weren't for
           | mycorrhizal fungi which over 90% of plants depend on.
           | 
           | There's a famous paper/framework called "Major evolutionary
           | transitions in individuality" that sketches out a big picture
           | pattern of major evolutionary advances in complexity
           | following a surprisingly consistent pattern: As cooperation
           | and division of labor strongly increase, selection starts
           | working on larger entities. This pattern holds all the way
           | back to the origin of life itself as things moved from self-
           | assembling molecules to compartmentalized populations of
           | molecules, from replicators to chromosomes, from RNA+enzymes
           | to DNA+proteins, from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells,
           | from unicellular to multicellular, from individuals to
           | colonies/superorganisms, and (possibly) onwards to more
           | complex societies
           | 
           | https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1421402112
        
             | lisper wrote:
             | > Cooperation seems to be just as fundamental, if not more,
             | than competition
             | 
             | Both are fundamental. You can't survive without
             | cooperating, but you also can't survive if you try to
             | cooperate with the entire biosphere because ultimately
             | there is competition for scarce resources. If you don't
             | assert yourself to claim your share of those, something
             | else will.
        
               | culi wrote:
               | Yes, but does your kidney compete with your lung?
               | 
               | I would highly recommend you read through the paper.
               | Alongside these "advanced in individuality" comes reduced
               | (internal) competition.
               | 
               | I agree that both are _important_ but competition only
               | seems to be important at the very edges of what selection
               | is acting upon while cooperation is truly  "fundamental"
        
               | lisper wrote:
               | > does your kidney compete with your lung?
               | 
               | I don't know of any cases of direct kidney v lung
               | competition, but competition among body parts is common.
               | Sometime that competition is adaptive, sometimes not.
               | Examples of adaptive competition are things like when
               | under extreme circumstances (particularly cold or hunger)
               | your body will sacrifice parts of itself to keep other
               | parts going. Examples of non-adaptive competition are
               | things like autoimmune diseases. Also, sometimes
               | individual cells go rogue and stop cooperating. That's
               | called cancer.
               | 
               | > competition only seems to be important at the very
               | edges of what selection is acting upon
               | 
               | I guess that depends on what you consider "the edges". In
               | the case of humans, selection produces intuitions about
               | "us vs them". Those intuitions range from very closely
               | drawn boundaries ("us" includes only my immediate family
               | or clan) to very broadly drawn boundaries ("us" is my
               | entire species, or my entire phylum, or all living
               | things). In between are things like "us" is all members
               | of my species with my skin color. But the extremes of
               | this range are non-adaptive. Draw the boundaries too
               | narrowly and you end up without enough genetic diversity
               | in your in-group to drive out maladaptive mutations. Draw
               | them too broadly and you end up defenseless against
               | parasites and with nothing to eat.
        
               | culi wrote:
               | That's exactly my point. Competition at the fundamentals
               | is called cancer. It's the exception, not the norm.
               | 
               | Your body prioritizing which parts to keep alive for the
               | survival of the whole ship is not an example of
               | competition. Competition would be if a body part actively
               | attacked another body part. In this case, survival of the
               | entire body will eventually benefit all body parts
               | 
               | > I guess that depends on what you consider "the edges"
               | 
               | The "edges" as thoroughly defined in the paper I linked.
               | Major evolutionary transitions in individuality (METI).
               | METI is a widely accepted framework in biology
        
               | lisper wrote:
               | > Competition would be if a body part actively attacked
               | another body part.
               | 
               | I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.
               | I don't see a lot of daylight between "active attack" and
               | starvation of resources. Just because your attacker
               | chooses to lay siege to you rather than mount a full
               | frontal assault doesn't make them any less of an attacker
               | IMHO.
               | 
               | > The "edges" as thoroughly defined in the paper I
               | linked.
               | 
               | Sorry, I don't see it. AFAICT the word "edges" only
               | appears once in the paper:
               | 
               | "Evolution is a process of continuous change, and so we
               | should expect blurry edges with a mosaic of features
               | (1)."
               | 
               | [UPDATE] Oh, BTW, I think that paper is actually very
               | good. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
        
       | awinter-py wrote:
       | this is no surprise to anyone who has read dougal dixon's 'man
       | after man'
        
       | awakeasleep wrote:
       | why haven't any animals adapted to this role for humans!
        
         | encrux wrote:
         | In a Sense, cats did actually. Not through direct contact, but
         | by getting rid of mice and rats that infiltrate food storage.
        
           | buildbot wrote:
           | Cat's will also literally try to clean you as well!
        
         | TeMPOraL wrote:
         | How do you know they didn't? When was the last time you just
         | let bugs spend time on you?
        
           | Joel_Mckay wrote:
           | There are more mites specialized to live on your eyebrows
           | skin than many like to think about. =3
        
             | EA-3167 wrote:
             | Not just mites, we're absolutely covered and full of
             | commensal organisms. What's really interesting is how
             | specialized these organisms have become, like the
             | difference between body and head lice. We have critters
             | socialized to just our eyebrows and eyelashes, others only
             | live in apocrine sweat glands, etc.
             | 
             | Even before you get to the literal kilograms of bacteria,
             | fungi and other fauna in our guts we're a whole world unto
             | ourselves.
             | 
             | We just don't usually notice.
        
         | Joel_Mckay wrote:
         | There are many Garra rufa subspecies that were the source of
         | compounds used in treating modern autoimmune and skin
         | disorders.
         | 
         | The fishes histories go back thousands of years. As a species
         | it is super interesting... some evolved in hot-spring
         | conditions that would simply cook most other animals. =3
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_garra
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLWkojAnyH0
        
         | laidoffamazon wrote:
         | Can we squint and say the gut microbiome is kind of like this?
        
         | victorbjorklund wrote:
         | Plenty of bacteria lives in your guts feeding on your food and
         | generating useful by-products.
        
       | marojejian wrote:
       | NYT story earlier on this:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47754440
        
       | riazrizvi wrote:
       | They crawl over them and lick and nibble their bodies? Okay I
       | understand the quotes now.
       | 
       | It truly is the oldest profession.
        
       | mmooss wrote:
       | The full paper described in the article is available here:
       | 
       | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13070876/
       | 
       | Mark W. Moffett. The First Cleaner Ant? A Novel Partnership in
       | the Arizona Desert. Ecology and Evolution, 2026; 16 (4) DOI:
       | 10.1002/ece3.73308
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-04-18 23:00 UTC)