Wouldn't the first known animal to clone members of another species be humans?

In that case the article refers to the ant birthing members of another species, the word 'clone' is a bit weird here, but it is totally different from humands cloning cows, as the cloned cow is still birthed by a cow. The other species 'cloned' by the and is not a cloned individual, just another member of that species, but birthed by another, i suppose "researchers discover xenoparity in hairy ants" isn't very good science communication

	▲	tsimionescu 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The males of the other species birthed by the queen are genetic clones of the male that impreganted the queen, the DNA in the eggs is not a mix of the queen's DNA and the father's DNA, it's an exact copy (minus any mutations) of the father's DNA. So yes, it is exactly a clone, and not a regular new individual.

▲

rnhmjoj 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd wager these ants have been doing it for longer than humans have, unless they somehow only started this in the 90s.

▲

apexalpha 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In most contexts humans are seprate from animals.