THE SUBFAMILIES OF FORM:ICIDE, AND OTHER TAXONOMIC NOTES.

A comparison of the seventh volume of Dalla Torre’s "Catalogus ttymenopterorum," which summarizes what was known of the classification of the Formicide down to 1890, with any very recent monograph of these insects, gives the impression that there has been no change in expert opinion concerning the limits of the family and its subfamilies during the past thirty years. Dalla Torre recognizes five subfamilies, the Doryline, Ponerine, Myrmicine, Dolichoderine and Camponotine and the same groups are retained in Emery’s contributions to the "Genera Insectorum" (1910-’13), so far as published, and in his recent sketch of the classification of the Myrmicinee (191). Between the appearance of the "Catalogus" and the works lust mentioned, however, Emery, who has shown greater interest than other myrmecologists in the definition of taxonomic categories above the rank of the genus, proposed an additional subfamily, the Pseudomyrminee in 1899, and in 1895 trunsferred a group of genera, comprising the tribe Cerapachyini, from the Ponerin, where it had been placed by Forel in 1893, to the Doryline. After Forel and I had objected to this proceeding, Emery, in the "Genera Insectorum" (1913) returned the Cerapachyini to the Ponerinm, but guve them the rank of a section, the Prodoryline. He had long since reunited the Pseudomyrmine with the Myrmicine. In his most recent sketch of the classification of this subfamily (191) he unites the tribes M:etaponini and Pseudom:rmini as the first section, the Promyrmine, and places all the other tribes in a second section, the Eumyrmicine. Thus in 190 the five subfamilies have again acquired the limits which they had in 1890. During the past year a study of ant-larvee, representing more than a hundred genera and many subgenera of all five subfamilies, has convinced me that Emery was right in 1899, when he regarded the Pseudomyrmine as constituting an independent subfamily. I am also of the opinion that the Cerapachyini should be removed

THE SUBFAMILIES OF FORM:ICIDE, AND OTHER TAXONOMIC NOTES. BY WILLIAM MORTON WHEELER. A comparison of the seventh volume of Dalla Torre's "Catalogus ttymenopterorum," which summarizes what was known of the classification of the Formicide down to 1890, with any very recent monograph of these insects, gives the impression that there has been no change in expert opinion concerning the limits of the family and its subfamilies during the past thirty years. Dalla Torre recognizes five subfamilies, the Doryline, Ponerine, Myrmicine, Dolichoderine and Camponotine and the same groups are retained in Emery's contributions to the "Genera Insectorum" (1910-'13), so far as published, and in his recent sketch of the classification of the Myrmicinee (191). Between the appearance of the "Catalogus" and the works lust mentioned, however, Emery, who has shown greater interest than other myrmecologists in the definition of taxonomic categories above the rank of the genus, proposed an additional subfamily, the Pseudomyrminee in 1899, and in 1895 trunsferred a group of genera, comprising the tribe Cerapachyini, from the Ponerin, where it had been placed by Forel in 1893, to the Doryline. After Forel and I had objected to this proceeding, Emery, in the "Genera Insectorum" (1913) returned the Cerapachyini to the Ponerinm, but guve them the rank of a section, the Prodoryline. He had long since reunited the Pseudomyrmine with the Myrmicine. In his most recent sketch of the classification of this subfamily (191) he unites the tribes M:etaponini and Pseudom:rmini as the first section, the Promyrmine, and places all the other tribes in a second section, the Eumyrmicine. Thus in 190 the five subfamilies have again acquired the limits which they had in 1890.
During the past year a study of ant-larvee, representing more than a hundred genera and many subgenera of all five subfamilies, has convinced me that Emery was right in 1899, when he regarded the Pseudomyrmine as constituting an independent subfamily. I am also of the opinion that the Cerapachyini should be removed

190]
Wheeler--Subfamilies of Formicidae and Other Taxonomic Note. 47 from the Ponerine and raised to the rank of an independent subfamily, between the Doryline and Ponerine. A number of reasons may be adduced for making these changes.
In 1899 Emery, after a comparative study of the larvae of several Formicid genera, concluded that "Those of Sima and Pseudomyrma, besides their extremely hypocephalic development, exhibit a very special character in the presence of rudiments of antennae. I believe that this very noteworthy fact, together with the wellknown peculiar characters of the head of the imagines, will justify the separation of these genera from the remainder of the Myrmicine, to form the new subfamily of the Pseudomyrminee." My study of numerous species of this group, which now embraces four genera, Tetraponera Smith (= Sima Roger), Pachysima Emery and Viticicola Wheeler of the Old and Pseudomyrma Lund of the New World, shows that Emery was far from realizing the full import of their larval characters. Not only have the larvae peculiar long, straight, cylindrical, distinctly segmented bodies with blunt anterior and posterior ends, a large, usually subquadrate head, ventrally placed and with rudiments of antennae (which are also present in the larvae of many other ants, notably in the Ponerine), but the thoracic and first abdominal segments are furnished with peculiar exudatory papillae (exudatoria), which form a cluster around the mouth. I have described and figured these organs in Viticicola and Pacl.ys:ma (1918b) and have shown that they have the form of extraordinary appendages in the first larval stage (trophidium) of the two known species of the latter genus, and that the swollen ventral portion of the first abdominal segment, just behind the mouth, forms a pocket in which the workers place a pellet of food.
The exudatoria, the pocket, which I call the trophothylax, and the unusual method of feeding are characteristic of all four genera and no distinct traces of such conditions have been found in any other ant-larwe.
More recent study has added two very interesting facts, which, in advance of a complete account to be published in collaboration with my colleague, Prof. I. W. Bailey, may be briefly considered in this p!ace. The food pellet proves to be merely the small pellet ("corpuscule enroul6," or "corpuscule de nettoyage" of Janet) which the worker ant moulds in its own infrabuccal pocket and consists of the solid food-particles from which the juices are Psyche [April-June sucked, plus the various particles collected by the ant by means of the strigils of the fore tibiae from the surfaces of the antennae and other parts of the body and carried into the infrabuccal pocket after being wiped off by the maxillae. Other ants eventually spit out the pellet which is commonly a moulded, subspherical conglomerate of diverse particles, such as small pieces of insects, fragments of plant tissue, fungus spores and hyphe, pollen grains, etc., and cast it away as refuse, but the worker nurses of the Pseudomyrmina place it as pabulum in the trophothylax of the larva! Even this, however, is not the whole story. An examination of the mouth of the larva reveals a singular structure, evidently used for reducing the food pellet to such a finely divided state that it can, when acted on by the digestive juices of the mesenteron, yield a certain amount of nutriment, which the worker ant could not extract from it while it was in the infrabuccal pocket. This larval structure, which may be called the trophorhinium, consists of two fiat, opposable plates, the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the buccal cavity, each furnished with very fine, parallel, transverse striee or welts, which, under a high magnification are seen to be made up of minute chitinous projections or spinules. The ventral usually has more numerous rows of spinules than the dorsal surface. The two surfaces are evidently rubbed on one another and thus triturate the substance of the food pellet, only small portions of which are ingested at a time from the trophothylax. In all 19seudomyrmine larwe and in many larwe of the other subfamilies, except the Doryline and Cerapachyine, the trophorhinium is beautifully developed, although in many ants (Ponerin) it may be used for comminuting parts of insects given directly to the larvee by the workers. A detailed description of the organ and of its extraordinary variations of structure in the various genera of Formicide is reserved for future publication.
In its development the trophorhinium bears a strange resemblance to the stridulatory organs of the petiole and postpetiole of many adult Ponerine and Myrmicine. It may, in fact, function also as a stridulatory organ, when the food supply is exhausted, and thus apprise the worker nurses of the larva's hunger. Many ant-larwe, notably those of the Ectatommiine Ponerine and of most genera of Camponotine (Formicinee), also have elaborate but coarser stridulatory surfaces on the mandibles, so that the larva 190] Wheeler--Subfamilies of Formicidae and Other Taxonomic Notes 49 may be able to produce a variety of sounds and therefore apprise the nurses of more than one need or craving. The adult Pseudomyrmine are so peculiar in structure that Emery, Ashmead (1905) and others have been led to separate them sharply from all other Myrmicine. The shape of the head in the worker and female and especially of the clypeus and frontal carine is unique, the eyes are very large and there is a strong tendency to development of ocelli in the workers, the conformation of the petiole, postpetiole and tibial spurs is peculiar, and as I have recently shown (1919b), the number of antennal joints (le) is the same in the male as in the worker and female in all four genera. Fig. 1. a, Ingluvies, or "crop," b, calyx of proventriculus, or "gizzard," and c, ventriculus, or "stomach," of Pachysima aethiops Fabr.; d, proventriculus seen from the front under a higher magnification.
Little study has been devoted to the structure of the proventriculus, or "gizzard" in the Myrmicine, but Meinert, Forel and Emery have described and figured it as simple and tubular in most genera and of a very primitive type compared with the conditions in the Dolichoderine and Camponotine. I find, however, that the proventriculus of all four genera of the Pseudomyrmine is much more specialized, being anteriorly developed as an apple-or quince-shaped ball, covered with longitudinal and circular muscles and with four distinct, connate sepals, bluntly rounded and finely hairy at their tips, and posteriorly as a very short, tubular, con-Psyche [April-June stricted portion which projects as a button into the cavity of the ventriculus (Figs. 1 and t). The peculiarities mentioned seem to me to justify us in returning to Emery's contention of 1899 that the Pseudomyrmine constitute an independent subfamily. I have endeavored to show in a recent paper (1919a) that neither the larval nor the imaginal Metaponini can be regarded as at all closely related to the Pseudomyrmine. Emery's section Promyrmicine should therefore be abandoned and his term Eumyrmicine may be regarded as merely synonymous with Myrmicine.
lig. . Viticicola tessmanni Stitz; a, sagittal section through part of the alimentary tract, including a, the ingluvies, or "crop" (much contracted); b, calyx of proventriculus, or "gizzard," x, its cylindrical portion, and c, anterior portion of ventriculus, or "stomach." A study of the larvae of the Cerapachyini shows that they are extremely like the larvae of the Doryline. This was noticed by Emery in his observations on the larva of Acanthostichus serratulus (1899). The mandibles are small, narrow, pointed and rather feebly chitinized, and I have failed to find a trophorhinium in either group. Apparently the young are fed only on soft food. That the foraging habits of certain Cerapachyini (Phyracaces) resemble those of the Doryline was shown in my paper on the Australian species (1918a). We know nothing of the pupae, but they are probably not enclosed in cocoons as in the Ponerine. Although the worker of the Cerapachyini has a Ponerine habitus, the characters of the female in the various genera are peculiarly diverse. In some cases (Phyracaces), this caste is winged and not unlike the females of certain Ponerine, in others (Parasyscia, Eusphinctus) the female is wingless and ergatomorphic and in still others (Acanthostichus, Nothosphinctus) the female is so much like the corresponding caste in the Doryline, that it might be regarded 190] Wheeler---Subfamilies of Formicidae and Other Taxonomic Notes 51 as a dichthadiigyne. A similar diversity is seen in the males of the Cerapachyini. The male of Acanthostichus aictus, recently discovered by Gallardo (1919) in Argentina, is so much like an Eciton or Dorylus male that even an expert myrmecologist would not hesitate to place it among the Doryline. The males of other genera (Lioponera, Phyracaces, Cerapachys, Eusphinctus) on the other hand, though lacking the cerci, have a decidedly Ponerine habitus. It would seem, therefore, that the Cerapachyini are intermediate between the Doryline and t)onerine, as Emery has contended, and that we might unite them with either. I should prefer, however, to separate them out as an independent subfamily, which may be ascribed to Forel, who in 1893 first recognized the "Cerapachysii" as a natural tribe. Of course, the name 1)rodoryline Emery cannot be used for the subfamily, because there is no genus Prodorylus.
For many years I have deemed it necessary to introduce another nomenclatorial change, namely that of the subfamily name Camponotine to Formicin. Forel, in his study of the poison apparatus and anal glands of ants, published in 1878, divided the subfamily Formicide Mayr (1855) into two subfamilies, which he called Camponotide and Dolichoderide. This was unjustifiable according to our present rules of nomenclature, for Mayr's name should have been retained and restricted to the group containing the genus Formica. At that time, which antedated the use of ince as a subfamily suffix, Forel ustified his course on the ground that "Formicidm" was already in use as a family name.
Owing to the fact that definite rules and conventions in regard to the suifixes of family and especially of subfamily names in ZoSlogy have been stabilized only within recent decades, there is considerable confusion concerning the authors to whom our modern names in idw and ine are to be attributed. It seems to be customary to accredit a family or subfamily name to the author who first recognized the group as supergeneric and gave it a Latin or Greek name based on that of one of its genera. If this is done in the case of the Formicide the authorities cited in the literature require revision. Frederick Smith (1851), Westwood (1840), Shuckard (1840) and Stephens (189)  The phylogenetic relations of the seven subfamilies, as understood at the present time, are indicated in the accompanying diagram (Fig. 3). For taxonomic purposes they may be most conveniently arranged in the following linear sequence: Family Formicide Latreille (1910