OBSERVATIONS ON GIGANTIOPS DESTRUCTOR. 191 



five in similar nests (C. sencx Smith and formiciformis Forel) 

 and others that live in the ground or in rotten logs (C. macnlatns 

 Fabr. and herculcanns DeGeer). Turning to morphological char- 

 acters, which the taxonomist regards as much more reliable, we 

 find that the only resemblances between Gigantiops and CEcophylla 

 (apart from the shape of the gizzard which both share with Cani- 

 ponotus) are the shape of the clypeus, with its great, projecting 

 lobe, the shape of the mandibles, and the feeble characters cited by 

 Forel. There are great differences in the size of the eyes and 

 claws, in the shape of the thorax and petiole of the worker, and in 

 the size and shape of the thorax of the female, though the venation 

 of the wings is similar. The larva of Gigantiops is like that of 

 Camponotus, but very different from that of CEcophylla, and the' 

 pupa is inclosed in a cocoon. Probably the male Gigantiops will 

 be found to exhibit some peculiar differences. Emery (in lift.} 

 calls my attention to the singular fact that the tarsal claws of the 

 male CEcophylla are almost completely atrophied. It would there- 

 fore be very interesting to know the condition of these organs in 

 the corresponding sex of Gigantiops. The foregoing considera- 

 tions seem to me to render it advisable to remove Gigantiops from 

 Forel's tribe (Ecophyllini and to provide an independent tribe for 

 its accommodation. I find that Ashmead in 1905 had created such 

 a tribe " Gigantiopini," though he included it in a subfamily Geso- 

 myrmicinae, with Gcsomyrmcx and Mynnotcras, genera which, in 

 my opinion, are only remotely related to Gigantiops. 



It is practically certain that Giganiiops is one of a number of 

 ancient, large-eyed, active Formicin?e, once of very wide distribu- 

 tion, but now narrowly confined to the tropics. This group, which 

 embraces also the genera CEcophylla, Dimorphomyrmex, Gcso- 

 myrmc.r, Opisthopsis, Santschiclla, and Myrmoteras, represents 

 merely the surviving specialized tips of diverging branches of a 

 primitive stock. In regard to CEcopJiylla. Gcsoniynnc.r, and Di- 

 morphomyrmex, we are actually in possession of considerable 

 paleontological information. Mayr ('68), Emery ('05), and I 

 ('14) have recorded the occurrence of two species of each of these 

 three genera in the Baltic amber, of Lower Oligocene age; Emery 

 ('91) has recorded an CEcophylla and a species allied to Gcsoniyr- 

 mex (Siccloinynue.r \Yheeler) from the Sicilian amber, which is 



