However it does mean that the male clone has to develop directly from a sperm cell from its father (and the mitochondria from the ant queen) rather than an ovum, or am I wrong?
…suggesting we need to rethink our understanding of species barriers.
The vagueries of speciation has been especially exploitable by the conservatism/YIMBYism movement, where a trait common in one region but uncommon in others can be used to declare a common unthreatened animal as an endangered species, despite a lack of genetic divergence. It would be like declaring uncommonly red-haired Irish as not just an ethnicity but a separate species.
My favorite example of vagueries in species differentiation is a study that found only 13 genes that reliably differ between domestic cats and European and Near Eastern wildcats. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1410083111) It really brings into question what domestication even is, considering that housecats are perfectly capable of supporting themselves outside of areas inhabited by humans. Their lack of differentiation from wildcats means that they can easily become invasive species in areas where they are introduced by humans.
It's impossible for a species to be invasive to its native land, but Poland has managed to simultaneously consider a group of animals with a mere bakers dozen of genes differentiating them, none of which hinder their ability to interbreed, as both "currently threatened with extinction in their natural habitat" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6749728/) and an "invasive alien species" (https://apnews.com/article/science-poland-wildlife-cats-bird...).
My reasoning is: I’ve seen animals lose some of their species’ behavior when separated from their parents too early (for puppies and kittens).
They end up missing behaviors and abilities that seem to be passed generationally rather than innate.
If this is the case, isn’t there something lost when a species is only kept alive domesticated or in zoos? Even if later reintroduced to the wild.
(ex a donkey and a horse can mate but will produce a mule which is sterile and so in my classification donkeys and horses are not anymore the same species).
So given the cloned male ants in turn mate with the queen they were all along the same species.
The Ants That Broke Biology
It mentions selfish queen genes and how the DNA from the male of the species "ensures its propagation by applying pressure to larvae to be queens rather than infertile females." Does it then? The DNA is there in the egg whispering, "do it, cheat, you'd be an amazing queen, doooo itt"?
They write that the queen must use sperm from another species that it has stored to circumvent that. So the queen is thinking, "ah, pesky sneaky DNA, cheating. Here, I'll just let out, from my sperm storage organ where I store a bunch of sperm all mixed up, only sperm from another species, that'll teach that pesky DNA!"
Like what is actually happening in reality?
There are genes called "selfish genes" which cause a negative impact on the organism. Normally they would be selected out by evolution, but the "selfish" part means the gene is propagated to descendant organisms far more often than a regular gene would be. There are several mechanisms that can cause this, wikipedia has a summary.
In this case the ants have a "selfish gene" which greatly increases the probability of an egg being a queen, which makes it much harder for the colony to thrive.
As for the mixing of the species? You'd need a time travel machine to find out for sure, but the researchers noted that the species live in proximity and do mate together when in the same area. This would allow the queen to produce the needed workers. Evolution drove forward and somehow created a mechanism that allowed the ants to maintain the DNA required independent from the origin species. That's what the researchers are looking for now.