© 2002 - 2004 www.thesciencist.org
The Sciencist
A peer-reviewed journal of
scientific discovery
|
|
Dissecting the Myth
of the ‘Strong Ant’:
A Scientific Comparison
of the Compression Resistance
of Ants and Humans
Sergei Rzhechnyik
Ten series
of strength trials were performed involving two
separate insect species, one human, and weights
of varying mass. The resulting data reveal an
obvious gap between the relative strength of the
insects and the human. These results clearly demonstrate
the superiority of humans and the fallacy of the
‘strong ant’ myth.
[This
paper is also available in PDF format]
Introduction
The popular imagination has long
held that insects are creatures of astonishing power.
From the scarab beetle–worshippers of ancient
Egypt to the sago grub–munchers of modern
Sarawak, numerous cultures throughout history have
viewed insects as being endowed with almost magical
properties. While the literature perhaps contains
a spattering of research in favour of these notions
(Delany, 1976; Stanislov, 1993), by and large the
great majority of such beliefs stem primarily from
the tales of fairies and silly wives (Corbert, 1934).
Among the countless denizens of
the insect world, ants, in particular, are renowned
for their incredible feats of strength. We have
all heard stories of the famous ant that could purportedly
carry ten times its own weight. Humans, on the other
hand, while recognized as being of moderate intelligence
and possessing adequate foraging skills, are rarely
remarked upon for their physical might. Why is this
so? The great pyramids were indeed built by thousands
of workers, but it was human slaves labouring under
the fear of Pharaoh’s wrath that built them,
not worker ants vying for the fleeting attentions
of their queen. Do such lasting monuments to human
muscle not outshine the sandy, evanescent warrens
of lowly ants? Surely we are witnessing a grim injustice,
one that undeniably must no longer be perpetuated.
This study, therefore, will demonstrate,
through clear and irrefutable evidence, that when
compared to humans, ants are, in fact, shockingly
feeble.
It will further show that insects
in general are appallingly weak, deserving neither
the attention of humans nor the status given to
them by the misinformed.
Method
Ten series of trials employing
weights of varying mass were conducted to compare
the relative strength of three subjects (Strømmen,
in press): Subject A, a common fruit fly (Drosophila
melanogaster); Subject B, a pavement ant (Tetramorium
caespitum); and Subject C, a human being (Homo sapiens).
Subjects A and B were purchased through a standard
supplier of laboratory animals; Subject C was a
friend of a friend. In each series, the subjects
were first refrigerated at 3 °C for 15 minutes
in order to reduce mobility, thereby preventing
accidental release. They were then placed (or instructed
to stand) in the middle of a 4 metre by 5 metre
testing chamber. A steel weight was attached to
a monofilament polypropylene rope and lowered from
the ceiling via a single fixed pulley until coming
into contact with the subject (Figure 1a). Upon
contact, the rope was immediately released. The
resulting responses were then classified as either
pass or fail. Where the subject was able to keep
the weight from touching the surface of the chamber
floor for a period of five seconds or more, this
was considered a pass. Where the weight touched
the chamber floor in less than five seconds, this
was considered a fail (Figure 1b). The same test
was conducted for each subject a total of ten times,
with the amount of weight in each series gradually
being increasing from 1 gram up to a maximum of
50 kilograms. The results of the experiment are
shown in Table 1.
Results
Significant variation was observed
in the relative strength of the subjects. Subject
A was completely unable to support any weight whatsoever,
categorically achieving a fail result in each and
every series. Subject B showed little improvement:
while a pass result was seen for Series 1, thereafter
only fail results were observed for the remaining
series. Subject C achieved a pass result in all
series with little effort.
Discussion
It is clear that large variances
in strength exist between differing species, with
a clear division emerging between the exo- and endo-skeletally
endowed. By applying a numerical value of 1 to the
strength of Subject B, two observations can be made:
Subject A can be said to have a relative strength
of zero; Subject C, on the other hand, is observed
as having a relative strength of 50,000. Clearly
there is little question as to who is the mightiest
of the three. Further studies will be necessary,
however, to determine whether such differences can
be attributed to heredity, environment, diet or
perhaps lifestyle. As well, further corroborative
tests including amphibians, reptiles, birds and
fish should also be conducted in the future, in
order to decisively determine who truly stands above
the rest.
One possible source of error in
this experiment may have been in the relative sizes
of the weights used when compared to the size of
the subjects. In some cases failure may have resulted
not so much due to lack of strength but rather difficulty
in properly balancing the much larger weights. Another
source of error may have been the inability of some
subjects to comprehend what exactly was being done
to them. Other possible sources of error include
performance anxiety and over-refrigeration.
Conclusions
This study has shown conclusive
evidence that insects, and ants in particular, are
sadly overrated. While admittedly not the weakest
living creature, the ant certainly dwells far below
the ranks of even the flabbiest wren or shrew. Humans,
meanwhile, should be given the recognition they
deserve and placed accordingly in nature’s
hierarchy of the strong, perhaps somewhere among
the lesser pack animals.
References
Corbert, H. (1934). A collection
of early-twentieth century wives’ tales.
Harfordshire, UK: Simpleton Press.
Delany, C. (1976). An investigation into the ability
of spiders to scare the bejesus out of decent folk.
Christian Bug Watcher, 14(3), 54–62.
Stanislov, R. (1993). Thailand’s fountain
of youth: The secret of removing wrinkles by sticking
poisonous bee stingers into your own face. Bangkok
Fashion Trends, 57(4), 32–47.
Strømmen, J. (in press). The rule of
three: A technical application of the new math.
Saskatoon, Canada: The Sciencist.
|
|
