Yes, it does give you more information. If the two samples are independent, then it tells that the event is statistically times more likely to occur in A than in B (it's all you can infer from your data).
Let the probability of a species being mutated in sample A be , and the probability of a species being mutated in sample B be . Then with a sample of species, the expected number of mutated species is in A, and in B. So in your case, you would expect the number of mutated species in A to be , and in B to be . Thus:
In your case you observed and , which means that:
Note that this, however, tells you nothing about actual probability of the event in both cases - only the relative probabilities of it occurring in each sample. As far as you know, - you don't have enough information.
This is quite paradoxal because if you turn the problem around and consider nonmutated species instead, then in that case the samples would be statistically indistinguishable.